The Silver Fern

@no-quarter said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

"6-7 years" doesn't sound particularly scientific, and I think the jury is still out on that. Benefitting from elevated testosterone levels through puberty/teenage years is undoubtedly a big advantage that would take a LOT of work to undo - to the point that allowing biological males to compete in female divisions is probably never going to be a level playing field.

Yeah, just found it interesting she thought a longer period was needed than we're ever hearing talked about at all. She follows the science, was on puberty blockers, and then testosterone blockers due to her DSD ... quite similar to a trans woman, while being XX female ... and a decent athlete, if not elite-level

She sees a role for medical gatekeeping (case-by-case) to look at other developmental advantages like bone density that occur during puberty

Good to talk to someone like that, without the gender ideology aspect coming into it at all

@booboo After the 6N, right?

No answers, just sharing "learnings" as I never looked at this before

CAS's position on "sex in sport" re-Semenya just seems illogical if taken in isolation (a stop-gap measure which I can understand)

And I don't think participating in elite-level sport is a Human Rights issue too ... I half expect the ECHR to not hear it at all for that reason

@booboo said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@l_n_p said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@booboo said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

Caster Semenya is a different argument to Lia Thomas.

The overall "fairness in sport" argument seems the same though? In cases like Semenya, some women with DSDs generate excessive testosterone, but naturally, so this triggered new rules to regulate testosterone levels, and if necessary take medication to reduce testosterone levels. I just saw in Wiki that she appealed last year

Sara Spary  /  Feb 26, 2021  /  sport

Caster Semenya appeals to European Court of Human Rights over testosterone limit | CNN

Caster Semenya, the South African Olympic champion runner, has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights to end “discriminatory” testosterone limits imposed on female athletes.

Not sure the status, but I imagine she'll lose

Ah, ok see your point but think it is drawing a long bow to conflate it with transgender athletes making a choice.

See above - I kind of regret it since reading the last ruling on Semenya in 2019 made my head spin ... bear with me on some overnight reading

First, I didn't know this but it seems all 2016 medallists in the Olympic women's 800m (Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui) were intersex with 46-XY karotype

Secondly, the more I read the more it's pretty clear that the phrase 'intersex' is a red-herring term used inconsistently, as non-intersex DSDs cause hormonal balances (IAAF's regulations seemed to be DSD-based). The difference in overall populations is huge - 0.018% 'intersex' vs around 1.7% 'DSD including intersex'

Then I was reading the summary of the 2019 ruling on Semenya, by the Court of Abitration for Sport on IAAF's regulations:

1 "It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that insuperable advantage and which do not"

2 "On the basis of the scientific evidence presented by the parties, the Panel unanimously finds that endogenous testosterone is the primary driver of the sex difference in sports performance between males and females"

3 "The IAAF submitted that if the purpose of the female category is to prevent athletes who lack that testosterone-derived advantage from having to compete against athletes who possess that testosterone-derived advantage, then it is necessarily “category defeating” to permit any individuals who possess that testosterone-derived advantage to compete in that category. The majority of the Panel accepts the logic of the IAAF’s submission"

Now that's fine, but the final Court of Abitration for Sport ruling effectively covered only biological males with DSD 46-XY (i.e. Semenya etc) without looking at similar DSDs in biological XX females ... like late-onset CAH. Yet both can generate male levels of testosterone - and late onset CAH is far far more common than other DSDs

I don't blame the decision, but if they are still holding to their points 2) and 3) in 2022 then surely a testosterone-weighted principle has to be applied across the board

• So also biological XX females with DSDs?
• And similarly on M2F trans athletes

... else the points 2) and 3) from CAS, are simply b_ll_cks??

Sorry for my "rabbit hole" research digression, I'm learning and happy to be informed

@no-quarter said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@L_n_P she will lose because she has testes which produce elevated levels of testosterone giving her an unfair advantage over women. She's actually a biological male with DSD. She's also a fringe case and should not be conflated with transgender athletes.

Yes, totally fair point, bad example. I was thinking XX females with DSDs but I see now Semenya's supposedly 46-XY which is very rare, and the rule applied by IAAF was specifically for this DSD

I was thinking DSDs more broadly as I was recently had an enlightening online chat with a biological (XX) female who has late-onset CAH, a DSD which is far more common (1-1.5%+) but mainly in a few specific communities, including hers sadly

Hormonal impacts vary case-by-case, but she had elevated testosterone for which she went through a lot of treatment - hormonal and surgery from age 12 on. Even so she went on to become a semi-pro female athlete in her 20s, so it was a pretty amazing discussion: she's very close to the science on this, and is certainly not a trans activist, in fact she's strongly feminist. I'd add more but that would probably 'out' her ...

Her view was that she was pretty okay with M2F trans inclusion in top-level female sport BUT reckons medically it needs 6-7 years on "HRT" (read that as testosterone suppression) to allow physical comparability, plus also medical gatekeeping

So interestingly, kind of where USA Swimming have just headed, but add an extra 3-4 years of testosterone suppression?

@booboo said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

Caster Semenya is a different argument to Lia Thomas.

The overall "fairness in sport" argument seems the same though? In cases like Semenya, some women with DSDs generate excessive testosterone, but naturally, so this triggered new rules to regulate testosterone levels, and if necessary take medication to reduce testosterone levels. I just saw in Wiki that she appealed last year

Sara Spary  /  Feb 26, 2021  /  sport

Caster Semenya appeals to European Court of Human Rights over testosterone limit | CNN

Caster Semenya, the South African Olympic champion runner, has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights to end “discriminatory” testosterone limits imposed on female athletes.

Not sure the status, but I imagine she'll lose

Perhaps more substantively - on Lia Thomas, USA swimming have brought in new policies

Ryan Gaydos  /  Jan 31, 2022

Lia Thomas' future murkier as USA Swimming releases new policy, Penn teammates express support

Lia Thomas’ swimming future still remains unclear as USA Swimming released its Athlete Inclusion, Competitive Equality and Eligibility Policy on Tuesday, while her teammates released a joint statement backing their fellow competitor.

For me all the science seems pretty immature, but the key point is that fairness has to be the #1 priority in elite level sport at least ... and that this needs to apply to intersex competitors too like Caster Semenya (you'll have to google DSD, and I'd suggest Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia)

@victor-meldrew said in Six Nations 2022:

@nepia said in Six Nations 2022:

I don't know who to cheer for in this competition.

Maybe Scotland, but @MN5's Neuter like claims of their probably success gives me pause.

I used to support France but their pro comp makes it harder these days.

Maybe Wales. Yeah, I'll go for Wales.

Being really childish here, but always want Ireland to lose while that fluffybunny Sexton is in the team.

I tend to go for Wales then Scotland as they generally play the game as it should be played. Reason Wales is top for me is probably down to the Welsh fans who are always great to have a beer with - never been to Murrayfield though.

My take is any of the 5 sides could win this year and @MN5 has point that Scootlinnd has as good a chance as anyone. Bring it on.

Setxon and Farrell have the same intense dislikeability factors ... "that face", petulant, yet pretty decent players? Thinking out loud, add Itoje too

Have to admit the 6N has grown on me over the years. Competive, but the quality is better too. In order for me -

1. Scotland - like how they play, Finn Russell, Hogg, loosies etc (they won't win, maybe 2/3 though)
2. France - soft spot for them since the mid-80s, always lots of talent even if unharnessed. Love to see their renaissance at national level continue
3. Wales - mainly because I like Wayne Pivac and his attempt to de-Gatlandise them (let's see if it works though!)

@siam Pretty much spot on honestly. There's a few things at play -

• The ages I gave are for NZ and UK are for public healthcare access for trans kids, of course there's the option of going private too
• There are international healthcare guideliness for trans kids which allow a bit more flexibility e.g like maybe starting hormones at 13-15 ... these are followed by private medical suppliers, I would guess the US too
• A trans kid in the UK can theoretically access puberty blockers and hormones under 16 without parental consent if they are found to be "Gillick competent" by practitioners. Gillick is a wider legal precedent which includes access for all kids to abortion services, contraceptives etc. Real life is trans kids can't apply this here given public healthcare gatekeeping - unless they can afford to go private without their parents knowing (how???)

On the science ... puberty blockers have been used for decades now to delay precocious puberty, BUT they're needed for longer periods by many trans kids - the goal is specifically to buy them time and let them decide if they do want to take further steps, or to desist. So there ARE some known areas of medical discussion / uncertainty specific to trans kids:

• Bone density impacts
• Fertility perservation prior to starting hormones for both M2F (cryopreservation of sperm - definitely needed) and F2M (preservation of eggs - suggested)

The medical gatekeeping to go on puberty blockers seems pretty high as it should be - I'd need to dig out UK stats, but the huge majority of pre-puberty kids referred to Gender Identity Clinics don't end up on them ... from memory

Everyone's going to have a perspective, hopefully this adds light though

@booboo said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@l_n_p said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@no-quarter said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@L_n_P but then you go down the road of whether it is even ethical to be giving children puberty blockers given the potential long term effects of that. In my opinion, it absolutely isn't, especially when you consider how many young people with gender dysphoria actually turn out to be gay and those feelings of dysphoria subside; we are seeing more and more cases of people really regretting hormone treatment/puberty blockers/surgery.

Ethics are societal, each country makes their own decisions at their own pace so that's a pretty wide discussion for me. Far more simply and within the "Trans in Sport" context, if puberty-blockers are a reality then sports scientists will also need to consider this as part of any future research

I think it's immutable that children are too young to make life changing decisions.

From what you say on "life changing decisions" I wonder in NZ - aren't parental and medical consent needed to access puberty blockers, or can your kids over there just decide for themselves? A quick read I just did, NZ medical pathways for trans kids have 3 separate decision points - access to puberty blockers (age unclear), hormones (min age 16+), surgery (min age 18+)

If so UK would be pretty similar to NZ, though it's under review

US and Canada legislate it on a state-by-state / province-by-province basis etc

(Not getting into the ethics here, just pointing out some current examples)

@kirwan said in All Blacks 2021:

@l_n_p we select ABs from overseas then the game is pretty much dead here. Will be a weaker version of Wales in the 80s.

Agreed and it's reality for NZR. It would be a disaster. It was more in reply to a comment on black-and-white thinking that's all

Fossie isn't the best, but the NZR selection process last round that annointed him seems the bigger issue imo ... obviously the elite coaching talent "out there" all have connections and talk - realised it was a closed shop. Every large organization starts to lower it's standards once it all becomes a bit chummy ... and here we today?

As an analogy - it's why many large companies prefer to promote from within up to a pretty senior level (say VP, SVP) yet the very top and innovative strategic roles (CEO, COO, maybe CFO too) are external hires far more often than not

@no-quarter said in Trans in sport / Laurel Hubbard:

@L_n_P but then you go down the road of whether it is even ethical to be giving children puberty blockers given the potential long term effects of that. In my opinion, it absolutely isn't, especially when you consider how many young people with gender dysphoria actually turn out to be gay and those feelings of dysphoria subside; we are seeing more and more cases of people really regretting hormone treatment/puberty blockers/surgery.

Ethics are societal, each country makes their own decisions at their own pace so that's a pretty wide discussion for me. Far more simply and within the "Trans in Sport" context, if puberty-blockers are a reality then sports scientists will also need to consider this as part of any future research

@kiwi_expat said in All Blacks 2021:

@mariner4life said in All Blacks 2021:

Or those who have convinced themselves they know the inner workings of the AB set up, know what is happening, who is responsible for what, and why the people inside it are doing what they are doing. Or, most importantly, why people are being given a particular role.

The issue with bad coaches in good teams is the rot is slow and it takes a long time to notice because the old systems from the good coaches (wink,wink Wayne Smith, Hansen...) are still in the player's minds but they eventually forget, the slide begins, the losses come and you forget how to win. South Africa had recently been there, experienced that with Coetzee and were pretty fortunate that they had a miracle (in Rassie) on speed dial.

I mentioned it when Foster was initially appointed. Human relations 101, it's even in a NZ written university text book; the highest predictor of positive future performance is past positive performance in a similar recent role. It's about 70% accurate, other predictors are not much more these 50%, or not much better than chance no matter what product and a recruiting firm would want to sell you (beware of their hype as they're selling their product).

The evidence points to the fact that Foster's past record as head coach of a professional rugby team is dire.

Added one word only ... my qualification is that I'm dubious that club/SR level head coaching success translates directly to top international level, though it can do with the right person. A lot is about the coaching team though, so if Scott Robertson interviews for Head Coach and could bring a team like say Tony Brown and Joe Schmid to the table it would say a lot about him just to get those type of buy-ins

(I'm biased as if Scott Robertson wants but doesn't get the next AB gig - he might end up as Eddie's replacement which would be fascinating for the lolz, and the Fern will have a meltdown! Otherwise my money might be on Steve Borthwick over here as he was a long-term assistant coach for England, RFU connections, head coach of Leicester since 2020)

Personally I don't have a problem with AB's playing overseas and being selected from there btw, NZR do ... that's more structural and financial though? Some good examples of motivated younger (non-AB or AB-fringe) players who have succesfully continued to develop in Europe. Some stagnate too.

This article I just read seemed a pretty balanced view, the question mark I had was for the future: that younger generation trans women who take puberty-blockers might not go through male puberty at all - so may be a lot closer to natal females?

"The scientists argue there is a path to allow trans women to compete in female sport by lowering testosterone. According to Pitsiladis, one way to achieve this is to change rules regarding testosterone depending on the sport, with less emphasis on using medication in events like shooting, and more in collision sports ...

However other scientists insist there is overwhelming evidence to show there is no way to allow trans women into female sport without sacrificing fairness. They point to recent studies showing that trans women maintain significant advantages from undergoing male puberty even when they subsequently lower testosterone"

Jan 17, 2022  /  Sport

IOC’s new transgender guidance criticised as unfair towards female sport

Medical experts have claimed the International Olympic Committee’s new transgender framework ‘is not based on scientific principles’

@kiwi_expat said in All Blacks 2021:

@rotated said in All Blacks 2021:

@kiwi_expat said in All Blacks 2021:

@rotated said in All Blacks 2021:

@nzbloke said in All Blacks 2021:

@sparky said in All Blacks 2021:

@l_n_p I'd be happy for Razor to get the top job because of his energy, enthusiasm and ability to get the very best out of his players, but with a heavyweight, experienced Assistant (Smith, Rennie, Joseph, Schmidt, Gatland, even Deans or Mitchell).

Yeah, Razor is an excellent coach & would do a really good job as head coach for the AB's - he has good rugby nous, so certainly wouldn't need to rely heavily on a very experienced coaching assistant - it's not vital if hasn't coached another country overseas, also the bloke is in his mid to late 40's & has won 4 or 5 Super Rugby titles... NZ Super Rugby is based on a really fast paced game, the same style the ABs play, so with all his experience as a Super Rugby coach he's the type of bloke we need, would have liked a Robertson/Brown combo, would be a top mix as one use to play in the forwards & the other in the backs.

Where does this confidence come from? With Smith, Henry, Hansen, Jones, Gatland, McKenzie, Wyllie, Hart and Deans (whichever job you count) shit hit the fan during their first international appointment. Why would Razor be any different and things go to custard like his second campaign with the U20s?

Also why are we so sure that he isn't going to follow the trend of most (but not all) Crusaders/Canterbury coaches having major issues once moving to a different environment?

I'm in favour of a Razor appointment in the style of Rassie, Cheika or Mitch given where we are in the cycle. He is well suited to shake things up and will improve the side in the short term. But we have to be realistic that over the medium to long term the odds are against him.

It pays to note that Razor was only 41 years of age (had only been a pro head coach for 2 years) during that U20 campaign, while they finished with the best points differential, and despite losing that single pool match (2nd seed in their pool, with superior PD to Ireland) didn't quality for the knockouts (2016 was the 1st season where the U20 tournament format changed to having only the no1 seed from each pool going through). He then proceeded to put 71 points and 55 points respectively on Wales & Australia in the plate matches.

Razor's record with the U20's was still 93%, he dropped that one game in 2016, and his 2015 win was NZ's first since 2011.. the longest drought they'd seen.

What's become extensively clear is the biggest issues for NZ under Foster has been the breakdown, set-piece, and winning the contact when carrying.

Crucially, these are 3 areas that Razor and Jason Ryan hold key expertise in.

Razor being a breakdown & ruck specialist and Ryan with our set-pieces.

It's time to finally implement some remedies, the meaningful ones.

They got smashed by Ireland then turned around and burgled a win against Wales with a last minute Jordie Barrett penalty.

Now this was five years ago so no one should hold it too much against him, but he obviously doesn't have some midas touch if we are struggling to put away Wales and Ireland at age group level with him at the helm.

For me success at domestic or Super Rugby level is the price of admission to be considered as AB coach, but only that. One SR title is as good as five to me. More interested in breadth of experience.

What was Shane Warne's sledge on Monty Panesar? He hasn't played thirty tests, he has played the same test thirty times. There is a bit of that with Robertson as there was with Deans.

They beat Wales 71–12 in their following match.

I've heard accounts from his acquaintances, current and former players, Razor is considered a rugby genius by those who know him personally. Meanwhile, you're mindlessly speculating on the internet. Former All Blacks, who were coached by the very best (Henry, Deans, Hansen) and rate Robertson significantly higher than those listed. Razor is considered Wayne Smith's equal among the players I have talked with.

Yet Wayne Smith wasn't the best AB coach, and his (2-year?) experience there showed him that? Not saying Scott Robertson is the same, just that failing at international level is part of learning your stengths - and more importantly weaknesses at the top level.

Henry and Eddie Jones have both spoken openly about what they got wrong

@rotated said in All Blacks 2021:

@nzbloke said in All Blacks 2021:

@sparky said in All Blacks 2021:

@l_n_p I'd be happy for Razor to get the top job because of his energy, enthusiasm and ability to get the very best out of his players, but with a heavyweight, experienced Assistant (Smith, Rennie, Joseph, Schmidt, Gatland, even Deans or Mitchell).

Yeah, Razor is an excellent coach & would do a really good job as head coach for the AB's - he has good rugby nous, so certainly wouldn't need to rely heavily on a very experienced coaching assistant - it's not vital if hasn't coached another country overseas, also the bloke is in his mid to late 40's & has won 4 or 5 Super Rugby titles... NZ Super Rugby is based on a really fast paced game, the same style the ABs play, so with all his experience as a Super Rugby coach he's the type of bloke we need, would have liked a Robertson/Brown combo, would be a top mix as one use to play in the forwards & the other in the backs.

Where does this confidence come from? With Smith, Henry, Hansen, Jones, Gatland, McKenzie, Wyllie, Hart and Deans (whichever job you count) shit hit the fan during their first international appointment. Why would Razor be any different and things go to custard like his second campaign with the U20s?

Also why are we so sure that he isn't going to follow the trend of most (but not all) Crusaders/Canterbury coaches having major issues once moving to a different environment?

I'm in favour of a Razor appointment in the style of Rassie, Cheika or Mitch given where we are in the cycle. He is well suited to shake things up and will improve the side in the short term. But we have to be realistic that over the medium to long term the odds are against him.

International Head Coach is very different from even top Club/Provincial/SR coaching.
Selection, lack of access to players, expectations, man-management, crazy levels of politics and also mind-games?

Henry, Hansen, Smith, Eddie Jones all went through that. Schmidt too now. Failing is part of learning

I'd love to see Scott Robertson as AB coach downstream but see prior international experience as hugely useful

@crazy-horse said in Happiness Scale:

@l_n_p thanks for your thoughts. Your perspective has been interesting. I can definitely relate to your 'timeframe'.

A few things happened over a few year from 45 on ... I had redefined my views on success. My replacement at work literally dropped dead age 40 on a project I was working on - a freak undiagnosed pre-condition, but overwork and stress also ... I saw a younger version of me there. A bit later my daughter was about to leave home (finances)

Finally I pushed the "one more time" move to another company at 50ish ... great role, perfect fit, a bit of a change, less stress - seemed great tbh? But after the excitement of settling, say 4 months in I still felt the same old grind you mentioned

Not sure what's next, only that a time-out has started let me rediscover my self identity in a way totally de-linked from work

@crazy-horse said in Happiness Scale:

@godder no I haven't seriously considered any work outside the job although I have thought about it Some friends have joined the private sector and are much happier but I haven't gotten to that stage yet. I may get to that point, I don't know. Others have found different roles within the police, so that is an option. Choosing one that interests me is the hard part.

I always wanted to do what I am doing (remember when you were a kid and people would ask what you wanted to be when you grow up - I always said I wanted to be a cop). Leaving the job (or my specific role) would be a big step for me, my self identity is wrapped up in it. Despite how I feel now and what I wrote in my previous post, I know I will be devastated (not sure that's the right word) the day I walk out of the station for the final time.

Ditto on self-identity that's why it can be hard to disentangle ... it's not just the job but can be a need to re-evaluate who we are and what we want/need to be happy going forward

I was fine(ish) up to 45. Ground it out until about 50 for various reasons I don't regret - family, reality of finances. Outside, everything looked fine, succesful etc. Inside, stuff that made me feel great at 25, happy at 35 and okay-ish at 45 had become a total grind by 50

I can't say what is best for you, we're all different ... I've taken a time-out without pre-defining what's next. It's very freeing if you can avoid feelings of guilt from not being a 'societally-approved productive unit'

@crazy-horse Not sure your work, but I think it can happen in any field tbh

I personally feel there's a point that can hit around 50 which is way more than a mid-life crisis. It's existential and you may already know that (deep down) swapping companies or jobs isn't the answer. I DO know the exact feeling you describe btw

It can feel hard to stay stop because we're all trained be "succesful", to know what's next and have a sure plan, or to grind things out (somehow) to retirement.? Also we may have responsibilities like kids, finances etc

Sometimes simply saying that you need an open-ended "time-out" can be the hardest thing to do in life ... just my 2 cents, and kind of where I am

So - full understanding, and I wish you the best so much

@nta said in Happiness Scale:

@l_n_p said in Happiness Scale:

I started contracting young at 25 purely for the money but continued it more as I found I liked the lifestyle and flexibility. I can work at 110%+ for long periods and enjoyed it - a good project can be 18-24 months (my field is corporate IT) .

Same here - now doing everything on cloud platforms and video calls makes it even easier to be remote.

The hurdle I'd have with contracting is not thinking like an FTE any more. Worry about the deadline, not what comes after. On occasions I've had to clean up behind a few contractors whose work was more stop-gap than solution, as well.

1000%. I went through that experience but in reverse when I went "permie" after 15 years as a contractor ... it needs a big mentality switch

Contracting => typically very much delivery-focussed and in a far narrower area i.e. I was contracting as a project manager for say 12-18 months. But it's a single project so - total delivery focus is normally key and of course you're always expendable!

Permie => suddenly dealing with the weekly 1-2-1s, dual reporting lines, annual appraisals. A lot more emphasis on strategy & planning, relationships & politics, managing the starts & ends (project building & business-as-usual continuity) - and in parallel with multiple other things - so bandwidth is key

No right or wrong - the move is definitely doable, but yes, a mentality switch is needed either way

@nta I started contracting young at 25 purely for the money but continued it more as I found I liked the lifestyle and flexibility. I can work at 110%+ for long periods and enjoyed it - a good project can be 18-24 months (my field is corporate IT) .

Contracting let me do this, then take off 6 months to chill and travel before looking around again

Also I've taken 6 months contracts with big-corporates where I've stayed on for around 5 or more years because it all "clicked" and they had a pipeline. Medium companies can't offer this imho

But yes, contracting works best done either before the kids are at school or after they leave!