Reality123 wrote:
runnersworld1983 wrote:
At least for ages 15+, what if we instead of gender divisions have "testosterone classes": above versus below 100 ng/dL. It'd be exactly the same as dividing by biological sex, but the label would acknowledge that we are doing this based on biology not gender. We keep PC labels but also fairness.
Something like that *could* work. But as another poster has said, but the time you've decided you're a girl, by 15 the testosterone is already cranking, and the cis-boys are just bigger. I also *guess* that boy DNA just makes boys bigger ( eg it's not just estrogen v testosterone)
Which would mean to be fair to the other 99.99% of girls, the cis-boys would have to start being a tranny and have decided by 10 or 11 or so, which is even more insane.
This would absolutely not work. It's not just a testosterone difference. 100 ng/dl is way too close to the normal upper range for females. Not to mention you could have a boy who did synthetic testosterone for some time and then his body shuts down and now you have this dude who is jacked with testosterone levels under 100 ng/dl.
It's never that simple, unfortunately. What the IAAF is trying to set the limits at is well above 100 ng/dl, which makes a lot more sense, but will still end up being a stain on the IAAF's record when we look back upon it.
Many of the top women in the world have testosterone levels approaching and exceeding 100 ng/dl at times. If you watched NCAAs the past few days you can easily spot quite a few very masculine women, which is just how their DNA is. It wouldn't be right to punish them for being outliers as it's already bad enough for a woman to look like a man or vice-versa.