Exactly. He or she would have to demonstrate it instead of just saying so/dictating. They would have to show everyone what it means to be ethical (good) or unethical (bad) by utilising themselves (the truth - if they are indeed omniscient). — Benj96

If God desires to even be ethical, that is.

Are we referring to God as a person here or god as the universe?
Because god as a person could be just. They have free will to make good or bad decisions. God as the universe cannot be just as the universe is everything: thus including both justices and injustices as a whole. — Benj96

God is not limited to being the universe according to any theist, at least as far as I know. Perhaps God is omnipresent, but he exists as an entity with free will according to most - he is just everywhere.

He can do anything or be anything and can even make two contradictory things true (square-circle). He can exist as an entity yet permeate every corner of the universe simultaneously if he so desires. The unfettered kind of God that modern theologians talk about has basically unlimited power, but that doesn't mean that God can't act unjustly.

Then I'm not alone here.

In that frame work, we would have to assume that your understanding of who is an asshole is wrong compared to God's superior understanding of who is an asshole. — PhilosophyRunner

Not really, unless God were threatening me with death, or an eternity of damnation for defying him.

Or that everything ethical or just is what god understands as ethical and just, regardless of whether humanity understands it as ethical or just. — PhilosophyRunner

It would be arbitrary if God said what is ethical is ethical merely because he says so. If what is ethical is just understood to be ethical by God we have no need for God.

But from my point of view, this is all moot as I see no reason to believe an omniscient God in the first place. — PhilosophyRunner

Agreed. But this is directed at theists who have a sense of fairness that is still divorced at least a little from their belief in God.

to play devils advocate (in a post about God!), if you take God to be omniscient then God has a better understanding of what is just than you do (as your knowledge is not perfect, God's is). And as such it make no sense for you to judge God's actions as unjust, this is merely your limited human mind not being able to comprehend true Godly justness. — PhilosophyRunner

Then we have to accept that God is an insane asshole that actually believes that serial rapists should not be punished except when caught? Are we allowed to have any conception of justice? Or should we allow ourselves to be buffeted by the injustices we perceive to be happening all around us and merely whisper to ourselves that it's all part of God's plan?

If I find God to be unjust by my understanding of justness - this means my understanding of what is just and God's understanding of what is just differ. As God cannot be wrong in his understanding of anything, it is my understanding of justness that is wrong. — PhilosophyRunner

Then everything ethical and just is absolutely arbitrary. Or we don't need God. Read this for clarification.

Are you educated in anything other than philosophy? And like T Clark said: your English is good.

reading along with an occasional reply entering those discussions which I'm actually able to participate in without getting eaten alive :nerd: — Seeker

I think we could all stand to be a little less cantankerous with each other ... or maybe not? Nevertheless, my favorite threads, and the most productive ones - imo - are the ones in which people find common ground, eventually, through argumentation.

BTW, if you ever change your mind and want to do an OP and you don't know if it's good enough/direct enough/concise enough, free of fallacies, etc., I think someone might be willing to give it a read before you post it.

Of course, plagiarism isn't allowed, but I think a quick read over would be fine.

Honestly, you probably couldn't do worse than some of the people I've seen post just based on this OP alone.

If the OP claims that rationality is a force that negates/limits free will, I'd have to agree but with the proviso that as per some sources it (rationality) also liberates in the sense that if a particular factor that influences our decisions is identified, we can take (logical) steps to counter it (effectively). — Agent Smith

I sort of agree with that, at least insofar as it expands choices. But one can act freely without having any more than two options really. Because that way you could have chosen otherwise.

I don't see that you have properly distinguished between rational and irrational. You seem to be saying that an irrational act follows from some kind of "internal logic", which is logic that may be faulty, and this is the means by which you can say that an irrational act is actually in some sense rational. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm saying that an act is definitely irrational if it possesses no internal logic, and that if it has internal logic and consistent reasoning - especially with non-contradictory premises - it is definitely rational. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

So, the fault in (b) is that what you call a "rational action", may actually be irrational, because the internal logic may be faulty, yet the irrational act qualifies as a "rational action" by your definition. — Metaphysician Undercover

I said "and", not "or". It must have both internal logic and consistent reasoning given as set of premises, but these premises need not be strictly true. If the internal logic is faulty, it cannot be rational even with consistent reasoning given a set of premises according to my definition.

Then, in premise (c) you go way off track. The selection of a course of action, does not necessarily "preclude" all other possible courses of action. One may set out on a course of action, being somewhat unsure of oneself, and ready to change course at a moment's notice. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not deny this. I'm saying that if we are talking about someone actually being rational and making a rational decision, they must eliminate all other possibilities because of reasoning - even if that reasoning is faulty. Otherwise, a rational decision is not being made. And what is rational could change and it would be relevant up until a course of action is selected. But while actions are limited by our intent to act rationally, act a is not free, or every action becomes rational.

I am discussing what is the case in a perfect instance of rational decision making. Considerations of whether or not humans make decisions irrationally is irrelevant.

Therefore "p" as the possible courses of action, in an irrational action, is completely backward in your representation. You represent the possible courses of action as having been considered by the acter, when in reality, the irrational acter does not consider those possible courses of action, hence the irrational act follows. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps, but one need not consider every possible irrational course of action to come up with one that is while deliberating. I didn't say that p represents all irrational courses of action, but rather those considered. And even if one does not consider many irrational actions because irrational people don't think before acting, and thus are acting irrationally, people almost always deliberate and consider multiple courses of action if they are acting rationally.

Once again, I am talking about people who are by definition making rational decisions. They are not being irrational if they are looking to spot errors in internal logic or consistent reasoning and, thus, eliminate certain irrational courses of action.

Thanks for the quick reply!

It would probably help if you gave the definition of FW with which you're working here. — noAxioms

FW is the ability to choose between different courses of action unimpeded. This would imply autonomy and the ability to have done otherwise.

It seems to vary considerably depending on one's biases. I for instance define it as being able to make my own choices, and not having an external (supernatural?) entity do it for me. Pretty biased, I know. No, I'm not a materialist, but again, maybe you have a different definition of what being a materialist means. — noAxioms

I admit I didn't really spell out the way the OP relates to materialism because I was getting bored re-reading and refining the post. If the only thing that is relevant to rational discussions is science, math, and logic, that sounds a lot like some sort of materialistic view. Although maybe there is a better word for that?

My more typical example is one where somebody is trying to cross a busy street. There's more than one time to do it safely, but one must still choose a safe one over one that puts you in unreasonable danger. Some people's definition of free will would get this person killed almost every time. The rational robot should have no trouble with the task, because it has the sort of free will that I defined. — noAxioms

Yes, and a smart, rational person that could exercise their free will and get themselves killed could also hit the button that lights up the sign that indicates to them that it is safe to cross the street, because people are often rational or think rationally when making decisions that involve not dying, for instance. So, the presence of free will does in no way imply that humans cannot be as rational as a rational robot when necessary.

a. Humans are somewhat inherently rational and take some actions based upon reasoning and internal logic.
So we love to believe, but I've found it to be otherwise. It is actually a good thing that we're not particularly rational. — noAxioms

I think we should always be rational when we can be, but maybe that's just me. And I think people are consistently rational when it matters.

d. If actor x has free will, they can choose combinations of courses of action that are subsets of p that are not otherwise available to actor x even with the intent to act rationally.
A simple mechanical device can make such choices. Does such a device have free will then? — noAxioms

If the machine is conscious and is actually considering and choosing between different courses of action, then maybe. But a mechanical device cannot think, and thus cannot have free will.

e. By necessity, all actions p + a that are considered with the intent to act rationally and those that are precluded by reasoning/faulty logic must be rational or action a is unfree depending upon whether or not free will exists.
Don't understand this. It seems to suggest that all possible actions considered must be rational ones. If one considers an irrational one, the choice eventually made (even of a different action) is not free. That makes no sense, so I probably got it wrong. — noAxioms

You did. p + a includes both the rational decision made - a - and also the collection of other rational decisions and those that are also not rational - p. So, the whole group together represents the collection of possible actions. I just grouped the possible rational actions not taken with the irrational ones not taken in p. The other irrational actions grouped into p are not able to be deliberately taken because they are precluded by the intent to act rationally.

One can choose another rational course of action, but it will ultimately be unfree, or all of the choices - even the ones precluded by the intent to act rationally - become rational if free will exists.

each's premises must be differentiated in terms of subsets of the collection of infallible premises q.
The premises are infallible now. Does that means they're necessarily true (which would defeat them being called premises at all), or they're not open to debate, in which case they're irrational biases instead of premises arrived at via rational choice. — noAxioms

Yes, the premises must be based on verifiable truths because that way we can sidestep the whole thing about rational actions having false premises yet still being rational. If you have an issue with that it is an issue of definition. To repeat the definition: one can reason with faulty premises and come up with something rational given those premises. I think there is something between irrational biases and things that are necessarily true.

To begin: when discussing “rational” actions, “rational” means in accordance with reason or logic, which are two very different things. A belief that results in an action can have internal logic but be the result of poor reasoning and still be rational according to some faulty premises. I will define rational as such:
An example of something that involves reasoning that is not logical would help clarify this. Maybe something else that is logical but lacks reasoning. — noAxioms

One might assert that the covid vaccine is a death serum intended to reduce the earth's population and that if you don't want to die you shouldn't take it. Logically makes sense, but obviously the vaccine isn't a death serum.

Rational: A reference to any belief that possesses internal logic and reasoning consistent with a set of premises that may or may not be accurate.
It's only about beliefs? Not choices? Must the logic be valid? Plenty of supposedly rational choices are made by poor logic skills, resulting in actions inconsistent with their premises. Reaching for the next cigarette for example, despite knowledge (premises) that doing so will ruin one's health. — noAxioms

If one starts with the false premise that cigarettes are worth ruining one's health then maybe it is rational to smoke a cigarette. And I explain that I also apply the term rational to actions and decisions later in the OP. And yes, the internal logic should be valid. I get that it isn't always when people are actually making decisions, but I can't really call it rational otherwise. But I think my argument applies when we get it right.

BTW not saying humans are all that rational, but rather rational some of the time quite consistently.

Bodily autonomy? The maximization of fulfillment of preferences? The future of the human race?

Can't answer that since it seems to be dependent on a selected goal. Being human, I'm apparently too stupid to select a better goal. I'm intelligent enough to know that I should not be setting the goal.
But I can think of at least three higher goals, each of which has a very different code of what's 'right'. — noAxioms

What are those goals?

Right. But we'll not like it because it will contradict the ethics that come from our short-sighted human goals. — noAxioms

I think I might find it acceptable, whatever the AI might come up with. Maybe.

DARPA actually is investigating Targeted Neuroplasticity Training for teaching marksmanship and such things.
That perhaps can improve skills. Can it fix stupid? I doubt the military has more benevolent goals than our hypothetical AI. — noAxioms

Okay that was funny. Yeah if they are doing their jobs right they can't really be described as benevolent. And no, TNT obviously can't fix stupid. Just look at Jocko.

Human ethics are based on human stupidity. I’d not let ‘anything the humans want’ to be part of its programming. — noAxioms

What do you consider to be acceptable ethics and/or meta-ethics? Maybe the benevolent AI could come up with some good stuff after being created?

Honestly at this point it sounds like the best thing to do would be to find the most intelligent, impartial and benevolent person and integrate their mind with some sort of supercomputer. Who knows what that would feel like, though. It would probably be fucking horrible.

Also, I appreciate the historical analysis. It's a perspective I hadn't heard before.

edit: it would be interesting to see the jiu-jitsu gains on TNT though, for sure.

Perhaps, but then they're also incredibly stupid, driven by short term goals seemingly designed for rapid demise of the species. So maybe the robots could do better. — noAxioms

I'm certain robots could do better, especially given we could mold them into just about anything we want, whether or not doing so is ethical. To mold a human even into something as seemingly mundane as an infantryman is orders of magnitude harder than it would be to simply create a robot capable of executing those functions, once the programming is complete, and would result in less or no trauma from seeing combat.

Speaking of which, the training process is so imperfect and slow - turning people into soldiers - that DARPA actually is investigating Targeted Neuroplasticity Training for teaching marksmanship and such things. And, while the military always gets the cutting-edge tech first, it could offset our soon to be dependance on robots in the future in many professions.

In fact, if we were all walking around all big-brain with our extra plasticity, we would be able to excel at jobs unrelated to the mundane work executed by robots in the near future.

Sorry for getting a little off course there.

Take away all the wars (everything since say WW2) and society would arguably have collapsed already. Wars serve a purpose where actual long-term benevolent efforts are not even suggested. — noAxioms

Can you back this up at all? Not necessarily with studies or anything, I just thought that the Vietnam War, for example, didn't even accomplish its goals, as it didn't really prevent the spread of communism, which was indeed its goal?

Disagree heavily. At best we've thus far avoided absolute disaster simply by raising the stakes. The strategy cannot last indefinitely. — noAxioms

I think you are right, at least partially. But we are talking about rational people when we talk about Biden and Putin, or at least largely rational. Putin is, of course, a despicable war criminal, but I don't think he wants to see the demise of his country and everyone in it. And so long as he doesn't press the button, he is tacitly acknowledging that he has some sort of twisted idea of what he wants for humanity.

Maybe they get smarter than the humans and want to do better. I've honestly not seen it yet. The best AI I've seen (a contender for the Turing test) attempts to be like us, making all the same mistakes. A truly benevolent AI, smarter than any of us, would probably not pass the Turing test. Wrong goal. — noAxioms

Agreed. It need not be indistinguishable from a human.

I at least thought it was good.
— ToothyMaw

That's unfortunate. — Baden

Yes, it is unfortunate - now that it has been consigned to oblivion. I'll leave it alone.

Whoever deleted it obviously claimed it was low quality.



Can he repost his old OP? I don't mean to get in the way but I at least thought it was good. Not trying to interfere here or anything.

Holy shit that is hilarious

there's a sophos who can predict the future accurately. — Agent Smith

That's a really weird thing to say.

What gets me stoked is this: the skill set the OP wishes robots to have may require computing power & programming complexity sufficient to make such robots sentient (re unintended consequences). — Agent Smith

I think it would be hard to accidentally make a sentient robot. We don't even understand consciousness in the human brain. And the most powerful computer we have probably has enough computing power to create something sentient, yet we do not have sentience.

The robots would refuse to comply if they're anything like us. — Agent Smith

Why, though? Why would they be like us, and why wouldn't they comply, given they would be treated well?

That's a lot to respond to, and much of it I can't respond to, because I would have to be significantly smarter than I am to come up with satisfactory solutions, but I will address this, which I think summarizes your post:

it is still incredibly hard for an entirely benevolent entity to choose a path. — noAxioms

But is it? Most humans are largely benevolent, minus some with severe antisocial tendencies. We put higher expectations on robots than we do on humans, and I'm not sure why, especially if they don't exceed our own abilities. The self-driving car, or the sentient sci-fi android, is either an improvement over a human or not an improvement according to the expectations we put on ourselves. Is society collapsing because we have somewhat benevolent entities, and some that are not at all benevolent, with the ability to destroy the human race fixated on waging a cold war with each other? No. It is precarious, but we avoid absolute disaster because we are rational enough to realize that we all have skin in the game.

I don't see why intelligent, autonomous robots wouldn't accept such a fact and coexist, or just execute their functions, alongside humans with little complaint because of this. They have a shared future with humanity, and they would likely try to nurture it - short of horrible discrimination or treatment at the hands of humans.

A *robot is no less a slave to its programming than we are slaves to our biology, I think.
I've been known to repeatedly suggest how humans are very much a slave to their biology, and also that this isn't always a bad thing, depending on the metric by which 'bad' is measured. — noAxioms

I find such a thing *somewhat acceptable too, honestly.

What if the (entirely benevolent) robot decides there are better goals? — noAxioms

It could be programmed to consult humans before changing its goals, but that is kind of a cop-out; that could be discarded in a pinch if a quick decision is needed. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with allowing it to explore within boundaries set by infallible, restricting laws, which is the condition I would necessarily put on sufficiently intelligent and autonomous robots.

Human goals tend to center on the self, not on say humanity. The robot might decide humanity was a higher goal — noAxioms

I also mention this in the OP. I have no hard answers, and consequentialism, something I subscribe to, would be an unpalatable solution to many. I personally would want something like a 0th law, even if it would lead to seemingly repugnant conclusions and actions. The greater good always wins out for me (I just hope I would have the courage to jump in front of the trolley if the time comes).

Yeah, I would say people do indeed look for meaning in suffering. Honestly not that much to be said about this other than that it is sad. People also seem to equivocate desensitization with the kind of toughness you can build up safely.

But there is something called post-traumatic growth in which trauma does indeed lead to an increase in mental robustness. Pretty rare if you are really being traumatized, however, or so it would seem.

Well, thanks.

I honestly don't see why a robot as intelligent as a human would necessarily exist in opposition to human goals merely for its intelligence, autonomy, or ability to accomplish tasks according to more general rules. Those general rules would exist in such a way as to not be overridden, ever, and that's what Asimov was trying to do. Or it could just be designed to be intrinsically oriented towards accomplishing goals that it could extrapolate from those rules. A *robot is no less a slave to its programming than we are slaves to our biology, I think. But I'm a layman with little programming knowledge, so maybe not.

Then it is so for mutual benefit, to elaborate the machine of man by man NOT for man will be self seeking in its awareness of the task. — Deus

I don't fully understand what you are saying. Strong AI will be self-seeking, whereas a machine made for man won't be? BTW substantial edits are regarded to be less than ideal without a disclaimer.

edit: not a big deal though, I often edit my stuff too

Was a photo or something intended to be shown?

Are you trying to get banned?

That requires an extra step - namely that the robots will have the capacity to become goal-oriented for themselves and will override the goals we give them. Intelligence and autonomy do not imply perfidy.

But there are so many things that could be accomplished with more advanced robotics lol. It could save and enrich so many lives.

At that point the pre-programming is insufficient, insofar as typical programming is insufficient. It would have to be programmed with human ideas of what it is to execute a task, and that is difficult to pre-program, if not insurmountable. Unless you want to make a "dumb" machine just for handing people screwdrivers in predetermined ways, that is, which is something I talk about in the OP.

chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

Most traits brought on by hormone treatments are reversible btw, even if castration isn't.

The fact that someone identifies as something else is not enough for me to believe that they are indeed that thing. That’s my problem. — NOS4A2

It isn't even remotely believable to you that a biological man could be a woman?

but at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

I think according to your own view a sex change would just mean that a man becomes a woman or vice versa, and it sounds like you wouldn't accept that as valid.

at some point a moral line is drawn, for instance when we are treating this mental incongruity with very biological measures, like chemical or surgical castration, the results of which there is no turning back. — NOS4A2

But I have every right to have my newborn son mutilated. Or I could get a tattoo of a dick on my face. Both are permanent biological measures.

If you can provide me with some serious science that says that people who take such measures regret it by and large I might agree. You claim to be in favor of freedom; you should be in favor of someone's right to remedy such issues. Children? I don't think so. But adults? Definitely.

I don’t have any answers, but it seems to me a view that affirms biology rather than amputates it leaves room for those to come to terms with themselves as they really are. — NOS4A2

You would block transgender people from getting the treatments many of them want. That's definitely a preventative measure of sorts.

What would you consider to be the defining characteristics of a man? Serious question.

The point being we seem to have two strains of not entirely consistent progressive liberal thoughts going on here: (1) gender roles and gender expression should not be designated by biological sex, and (2) transsexuals should be able to express themselves by the gender roles traditionally assigned to them by their biological sex.
— Hanover

I struggle to see how it is liberal at all to be espousing shoulds and should nots about something as personal as individual identity. — Tzeentch

There is authoritarianism on the left, and I could easily see an idiot believing that those two things are incompatible; if there are things that make men and women what they are that aren't tied to biology, (1) and (2) are in accordance.

edit: not calling Hanover an idiot, but rather people who would espouse that (1) and (2) are genuinely at odds, or would encourage a trans person not to fulfill traditional gender rolls

edit: traditional jelly rolls

edit again: I would more closely say that it makes sense that transgender people would express themselves by traditional gender roles some of the time, not that (1) and (2) are in accordance; no one should be told not to do what they want with their life, even disregarding if it makes sense.

There is an effort to distinguish between gender and sex while at the same time equivocating between them. — NOS4A2

This is indeed a problem, and I would start to solve this by proposing a system that models how people categorize themselves between man and woman. I have no issue with the two claims Hanover proposes; I think that certain traits are more or less judged by oneself to determine one's own gender identity and are more or less essential to said gender identities. Thus, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with transgender people embracing traditional gender roles on this view.

So, you and I, at least, mostly agree. I just don't think biology is the only relevant marker that designates man and woman.

I think the existence of transgender people actually validates this view because they have few of the biological markers, yet they identify - as strongly as anyone - as men or women; there must be some elements in there that are identified consistently by many for each of the sexes for such a phenomenon to exist. Unless there is some switch buried in our brains that is arbitrarily flipped one way or the other, but I doubt that.

The key, I think, is to abandon the word “gender” in such discussions. If we think along the lines of “sex” there is little room to hide behind these equivocations. — NOS4A2

But that presupposes that transgender people cannot exist, as you will predictably then claim that what makes a woman or man is their biology. Gender identity has to be divorced from that biology for any of this to make sense in a nontrivial way - transgender people are just mentally ill - as we have no reason to disbelieve that transgender people genuinely are transgender.

The stuff between your legs doesn't make you run faster or kick better. — Banno

Except it does. Men overall sprint faster and have greater lower body strength. In fact, the biggest indicator of top speed is how much force one can exert on the ground, and women have about 70% the lower body strength of men. There is a direct causal link between "what is between your legs" and athletic performance on every level. You are kidding yourself.

Technique is different, and women can be just as if not more technical than men, perhaps even much more so.

It's for that reason that there is US law requiring equal access to sports opportunities at the college level (Title 9 rules) for men and women.
— Hanover

You needed a law for that? — Banno

Yes, there is a law that guarantees equal opportunities in our nation. I guess we are primitive patriarchs oppressing the super-sprinter women with gorgeous legs, the affections of whom men like you absolutely deserve because of your moral purity and ability to obfuscate any issue with unfounded pseudo-moralistic declarations.

The science on hormone therapy? I know about it: many of the characteristics that result from masculinization or feminization can be reversed somewhat, but that doesn't mean a man with a male skeletal structure (something that doesn't change) that undergoes feminization is going to be equal to a CIS woman who never went through puberty.

They might become more like women physiologically, or close enough for their own tastes, but that doesn't mean that they are even close to the same level athletically as CIS women, even accounting for other factors.

Your feigned moral outrage on behalf of the multitude of CIS women being "smashed" by the army of men pretending to be women is laughable. — Banno

You obviously have no regard for what makes sports or fighting interesting and worthwhile.

There were no elements of moral outrage in my posts over transgender women fighting cisgender women, but rather disgust, which you would know if you read the OP in its entirety.

Do you seriously think I think there are armies of fake women smashing CIS women? First off, I was talking about people who genuinely identify as women, not "men pretending to be women" dominating cisgender women. That is easily solved. Second: it only takes a few people with extraordinary unearned physical advantages to ruin a sport. Otherwise, why wouldn't we allow performance enhancing drugs? Is Banno saying, "the more 'roids the better?" Is that a moral injunction to their use?

Check the science. FGI. — Banno

Check the science? What?

Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels? — Banno

Have you ever heard of competitive martial arts? Fighting?

It's a congenital problem with the notion of "fair" competition. — Banno

There is a difference between a transgender woman smashing cisgender women because of a severe, unearned advantage, and a cisgendered woman smashing the competition because of her incredible technical fighting ability.

It mostly comes down whether or not both combatants' abilities are sufficiently tied to sacrifices and allocation of resources and time, including fostered talent and conditioning, such that both have a fighting chance even at the highest levels. That is what I believe to be the common intuitive notion of fairness cited by people who are against transgender women competing with cisgender women in sports.

edit: that's my best attempt at un-muddling the idea of fairness, or lack of fairness, we so often hear about

Honestly, sometimes I post things to gather my thoughts in one place and just see if it starts a discussion that forces me to rethink what I previously thought. Someone might even find something of value in said discussion.

I definitely don't want to be a beacon for trans-phobia, but I also can't account for the fact that someone might post something shitty. I think I made it clear that I definitely hold no ground with trans-phobes.

I appear to not be able to find much information to support what I said. My bad. I'm looking at info on hormone therapy, and while most sex characteristics that would give an advantage can be reversed if the subject is masculinized, which is much like puberty, it appears as if the bone structure is permanent once one goes through androgenization. So, a female transgender athlete will have a different, unchangeable bone structure but reduced amounts of upper body muscle as compared to what they used to have within one or two years.

The question is just how much said muscle strength and mass is reduced relative to what they had.

From what I've heard and read what really matters is whether or not you went through puberty as a boy or girl. Once you undergo androgenization you will have an advantage that doesn't go away with hormone therapy.