QOTD - 9-19 - suggesting these athletes undergo surgery?

Being allowed to compete at the World level in sport is not a human right. The IAAF or the IOC can put in place whatever rules they feel encourage fair competition and the athletes have the right to not compete if they don't like those rules.

Lets say that David Rudisha decides one day that his true gender is female and he wants to compete against other people who identify as women. Should he be allowed to compete? I would argue that he shouldn't. While I'm not an expert on gender reassignment surgery, it would seem to me that patients would still retain certain benefits from going through male puberty, such as a male musculoskeletal system, not to mention muscle memory from training and racing at faster paces.

You should have to be 100% female in terms of biological sex to compete in the women's competition. Everybody else should race against the men. They can change "men" to "open" if it helps to appease the progressives.

OP, you arent alone. I can understand tye chemical reduction of T, but not gonadectomy. That just seems barbaric. Intersex female athletes are nowhere close to running like men do. Most of them cant beat the top women either, such as the young Indian girl people are making a fuss about; shes wouldnt beat the top US girls in high school.

All I know is what was in the article on the front page, but it appears that the cutoff for T levels is much higher than what a non-intersex woman could ever achieve. So transgender and 5-ARD athletes who go the chemical route can have much higher levels of T than the rest of the women they're competing against. Whether or not this is a problem is another issue, but as a matter of fact, they do have higher T levels.

Keppler, Johnny wrote:

OP, you arent alone. I can understand tye chemical reduction of T, but not gonadectomy. That just seems barbaric. Intersex female athletes are nowhere close to running like men do. Most of them cant beat the top women either, such as the young Indian girl people are making a fuss about; shes wouldnt beat the top US girls in high school.

This is what I mean - the IAAF seems ok with people using chemical/pharmaceutical treatments in lieu of bodily mutilation. It seems like the author (and, by highlighting that section, the BroJos) is suggesting that these women chose the chemical treatment solely on the basis of performance.

I think it's worth considering that they may not be trying to cheat the system - most rational people realize that there's a lot of life to live after retiring from professional running. These operations are something you can't go back on; it's totally understandable why someone may not want to go through an irreversible procedure so early in their lifetime

I want to know why nobody considers the obvious. Just compete as an "open" athlete if you don't want undergo chemical castration or surgery!

Yes, they will not be world class anymore, but what is wrong with being a humble amateur athlete?

If we could all just dress up in drag there would be no female athletes on any national team.