He meant sex/gender. 90% of people use the terms interchangeably.
But that is the same as denying trans people their identity, irrespective of your opinion on the nature of their participation in sport.
I can call myself a chair all I want, but it will never change the fact that I am, in all physical characteristics down to every atom, a human being, not a chair.
So until scientists "do a PCOS study on 100 million women and see what the outlying values [for T] are," there's no way to justify excluding males with DSDs from female sports?
Is that really the argument you want to go with?
BTW, the paper that Let It Rupp linked to above says that when the most accurate measurement method possible - liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry - is used to measure the T of women with PCOS, the number who would be found to have testosterone of 5 nmol/L would be fewer than 1 in 10,000.
As I am sure you know, 5 nmol/L is still significantly below the bottom end of the normal male range for T. Most WA uses 7.7-29.4 as its range.
The paper Let It Rupp cited also says that even amongst females with PCOS, natural testosterone higher than 5 nmol/L "is likely to be due to testosterone-secreting adrenal or ovarian tumors"
Me, I think that even if some women with PCOS did have T levels in the male range, so what? It still wouldn't justify including males in the category of sports established and meant for females. There are innumerable physical differences between human males and females. The difference in our levels of natural endogenous T is just a teeny-tiny part of what sets us apart physically.
I'm just saying that levels of testosterone (which Seb said was the key determinant) is a poor litmus test for dividing athletes into men's and women's categories, which I think you agree with. But I'm also suggesting that in rare cases, those high levels may indeed yield a significant advantage, and that if we step back and look at DSDs as just another rare biological variation, we should not be surprised or alarmed that these types of athletes are highly over-represented at elite levels. Maybe adjustments to the rules are needed, but to a certain extent, elite athletic competition will always be 'a freak show'.
But that is the same as denying trans people their identity, irrespective of your opinion on the nature of their participation in sport.
I can call myself a chair all I want, but it will never change the fact that I am, in all physical characteristics down to every atom, a human being, not a chair.
0% of humans identify as a chairs.
49% of humans identify as men and 49% identify as women. So identifying with a gender isn't some strange aberration.
Trans IS an ARTIFICIAL construct. NOT BASED IN REALITY by nature.
I think it’s the opposite. Trans people seem to be a naturally occurring facet of human life. Some percentage of human beings have a mismatch in their brain between the gender they feel they are and their biological sex. Seems to just be our nature.
This is a very true statement. It's the Gender/Queer theorists who have co-opted legitimate gender dysphorics and intersex/ people with DSD's as evidence for their theory that the differences between men and women are purely a product of a social conditioning and culture. This is what the term "gender" implies, whose proponents (specifically John Money) thought that the differences between men and women were purely physical and that men and women's behavior/personalities/interests could be infinitely molded through social conditioning, which simply isn't true and has been disproven in countless studies.
Confining women's and girls' track & field - and other sports - to female athletes like FINA and British Triathlon have done would also put an end to all the sometimes rudely-phrased speculation about whether or not certain individual athletes in women's competition are really female.
FINA hasn't done that. Their new rule still allows some XY athletes to compete in the women's division. Those who have CAIS, and those who started testosterone suppression before the stage 2 puberty.
I can call myself a chair all I want, but it will never change the fact that I am, in all physical characteristics down to every atom, a human being, not a chair.
0% of humans identify as a chairs.
49% of humans identify as men and 49% identify as women. So identifying with a gender isn't some strange aberration.
You miss his point. What percentage of men and women identify with what they aren't?
Sorry, it's just not true that women with PCOS have testosterone that "exceeds the lower bounds of male testosterone levels."
The majority of women with PCOS have T levels between 2 and 4 nmol/L. But PCOS outliers who have T levels higher than that still do not have T levels in the male range. PCOS women with the highest levels of T for the condition almost always have T under 5 nmol/L. But women with PCOS who test that high still are customarily evaluated for an endocrine tumor or additional endocrine condition like Cushing's.
The range of testosterone levels in females with PCOS extends beyond that of the normal female range,but not into the normal male range
serum testosterone levels in patients with PCOS seldom exceed 4.8 nmol/l. If testosterone levels are greater than 4.8 nmol/l then further endocrinological investigation to exclude other causes of androgen hypersecretion (e.g. Cushing's syndrome, adrenal gland or ovarian tumours) (3).
Most testosterone values in PCOS will be ≤150 ng/dL (≤5.2 nmol/L). Testosterone values of ≥200 ng/dL (≥6.9 nmol/L) warrant consideration of an ovarian or adrenal tumor.
Like you said at the start, "the distribution of testosterone levels of men vs women is bimodal and does not overlap." Women with PCOS are not an exception.
Sorry to be so picky about this point, but women with PCOS have a hard enough time as it is. Their health condition is a really serious one with myriad negative impacts. To add insult to injury, they are frequently described as being like men... So I feel compelled to set the record straight.
Also, lately I've seen and heard a lot of gender identity ideologues who promote inclusion of males in female sports backing up their position by claiming that women with PCOS have T levels in the male range. This, they say, justifies allowing males with male levels of T to compete in women's sports. Some say "cis black women" commonly have T levels in the male range too. Neither is true.
There is a problem with this analysis which is too confident about setting the upper limits of testosterone in females with PCOS. All of the available studies which I've seen rely on a limited sample size (hundreds at most); enough to establish a typical range, but not enough to know what the very uppermost values are possible in human biology.
To illustrate what I mean, the number of humans over 7 feet tall is 1 in 2.6 million. Now do a PCOS study on 100 million women and see what the outlying values are. Well, people say, the ratio of 7-footers is so small we don't have to even consider the possibility in our policies, but the problem as I'm sure you realize is that elite sport attracts outliers. There are only 28 people in the United States (out of 330M) that are as tall as Shaq, Wilt Chamberlin, and Kareem Abdul-Jabar. So what did the NBA do about these people, many of whom have medical conditions contributing to their height? They did not exclude them. They changed the rules, such as the 3-second rule and (for a time) outlawed the dunk. And interestingly, the 7-footers, while sometimes dominant, often have downsides such as a lack of agility or the ability to shoot foul shots.
The fact that it would take a true outlier to even glimpse the lower range of male testosterone levels should illustrate how big of a difference there is and show why inclusion is not always possible.
Confining women's and girls' track & field - and other sports - to female athletes like FINA and British Triathlon have done would also put an end to all the sometimes rudely-phrased speculation about whether or not certain individual athletes in women's competition are really female.
FINA hasn't done that. Their new rule still allows some XY athletes to compete in the women's division. Those who have CAIS, and those who started testosterone suppression before the stage 2 puberty.
Yes, you're right. I should have made that clear. I've tried to do so previously in that particular post and in all my other posts on this and other threads by choosing my words carefully. For example, in the first line of the paragraph above the one you zeroed in on, I said:
If the rules for track and field were changed back to close off the female category to XY athletes with disorders of male sex development and trans gender identities who've been through male puberties of infancy and adolescence
I used that phrasing because a policy that draws the line at XY athletes who've been through male puberties of infancy and/or adolescence would not automatically require exclusion of CAIS athletes. Nor would it exclude other XY DSD athletes who had their testes surgically removed as babies, or whose male gonads never developed in the first place as XY DSDs involving gonadal dysgenesis such as Swyer syndrome.
Re the new FINA regulations: as I read them, the rules pertaining to puberty of adolescence that mention age 12 and Tanner Stage 2 don't just apply to XY athletes who were put on testosterone-suppressing medications as children because their parents decided to medically "transition" them for gender identity reasons. I think the athletes the FINA policy-makers had just as much in mind - or even more in mind - when writing that part of the new rules are XY DSD athletes whose parents and doctors decided to surgically remove their testes when they were babies or young children.
Whilst adult DSD patients of both sexes and many others nowadays strongly oppose such surgeries on kids with DSDs unless absolutely necessary for life-threatening medical reasons, the fact remains that for many decades medical doctors and parents thought it best to remove the testes of many babies and children diagnosed with XY DSDs. Going forward, some clinicians and parents presumably will continue with this questionable and controversial practice, just as some are continuing to do it today. [I think it was you who on another thread posted a video of a fairly recent Australian TV talk show in which a mother defended deciding to have the testes of her 12-year-old removed after discovering the child has XY 5-ARD. From her response to the pushback she got from the interviewer and other guests who have DSDs, the woman seemed unaware that many adult DSD activists and DSD experts think that removing the healthy testes of children with DSDs on is a gross violation of the children's fundamental human rights - and it's probably bad for their longterm physical and mental health too.]
Historically, quite a few of the XY DSD athletes participating in high levels of women's sports had undergone gonadectomy many years ago as babies/young children. I imagine those who wrote the new FINA sports eligibility policies were/are very much aware of this group of XY DSD athletes and their special situation. Unfortunately, public awareness of, and sympathy for, XY DSD athletes who were subjected to surgical removal of their testes as babies/young children has been totally eclipsed by all the focus in recent years on the large numbers of XY DSD athletes who have participated in, or want to participate in, women's and girls' sports with their testes still intact and their testosterone unchecked like Chand and Semenya et al.
49% of humans identify as men and 49% identify as women. So identifying with a gender isn't some strange aberration.
You miss his point. What percentage of men and women identify with what they aren't?
I'm not missing his point. 98% of people identify with a gender, therefore it's ridiculous to compare it to people identifying with chairs, which to my knowledge isn't a common experience.
Trans people, for whatever reason, have a gender identity that is different to what is expected. But they're not unusual in having a gender identity, that's something that most people have.
Seb Coe isn't even a second rate scientist. what a clown...so of course Rojo will parrot his disgusting views.
Sebastian Coe is out of his league here. He is second rate at everything he has done ……. Sebastian has parlayed that into a career where he has proven to be a second rate mind.
Lord Coe did a rather good job with the 2012 Olympics. And was a very successful politician
I’d like to know how many Olympic Games have you organised Heneie? How many times have you been appointed as a PPS to the PM? Or ennobled?
Your words prove a second rate mind has been at work here. And it’s not Lord Coe’s
I'm just saying that levels of testosterone (which Seb said was the key determinant) is a poor litmus test for dividing athletes into men's and women's categories, which I think you agree with. But I'm also suggesting that in rare cases, those high levels may indeed yield a significant advantage, and that if we step back and look at DSDs as just another rare biological variation, we should not be surprised or alarmed that these types of athletes are highly over-represented at elite levels. Maybe adjustments to the rules are needed, but to a certain extent, elite athletic competition will always be 'a freak show'.
I'm also suggesting that in rare cases, those high levels [of natural testosterone] may indeed yield a significant advantage
The only way high levels of natural T will yield a significant advantage in sports is if the rare cases you are speaking of get their high levels of natural T from testes and they have male androgen receptors, male chromosomes, male genetics and male internal repro organs.
In humans who are female with female sex chromosomes, female genetics, female internal reproductive organs, female androgen receptors and female physiology, things don't work as they do in males.
When female humans have high levels of natural T, the T comes from our adrenals and fat cells as much or even more as from our ovaries - and the natural high T our bodies make do not give us advantages in sports. High natural T in females is always a sign of serious health conditions, none of which make us better at sports.
if we step back and look at DSDs as just another rare biological variation, we should not be surprised or alarmed that these types of athletes are highly over-represented at elite levels.
Yes, DSDs are just another rare biological variation. And these variations come in two types: variations of male sex development, and variations of female sex development.
Athletes like Semenya, Chand, Niyonsaba et all have variations of male sex development. The genetic mutations that cause their conditions occur equally in both sexes, but they only affect the sex development of males. These athletes all have DSDs that can only be found in males.
I believe athletes with disorders of male sex development need to be recognized, accepted, respected and celebrated as exceptional examples of the male sex who show how varied members of the male sex are and can be. Yes, like you said in another post above, these athletes are outliers - outliers amongst males.
For reasons that are not at all clear to me, you seem to think athletes who are outliers amongst males because they have disorders of male sex development should be treated as though they are exceptional examples of the female sex who somehow demonstrate how good at sports female athletes can be.
I'm not missing his point. 98% of people identify with a gender, therefore it's ridiculous to compare it to people identifying with chairs, which to my knowledge isn't a common experience.
Trans people, for whatever reason, have a gender identity that is different to what is expected. But they're not unusual in having a gender identity, that's something that most people have.
It's not true that "98% of people identify with a gender" and that "gender identity" is "something that most people have." Most people on planet earth are aware of their own sex, but very few buy into all the bollox required to have a gender identity.
Yes, it's true that that some people have gender identities, just as some people believe they have souls and others believe in reincarnation. But just because some people have these beliefs doesn't mean most everyone else on earth does.
I'm not missing his point. 98% of people identify with a gender, therefore it's ridiculous to compare it to people identifying with chairs, which to my knowledge isn't a common experience.
Trans people, for whatever reason, have a gender identity that is different to what is expected. But they're not unusual in having a gender identity, that's something that most people have.
It's not true that "98% of people identify with a gender" and that "gender identity" is "something that most people have." Most people on planet earth are aware of their own sex, but very few buy into all the bollox required to have a gender identity.
Yes, it's true that that some people have gender identities, just as some people believe they have souls and others believe in reincarnation. But just because some people have these beliefs doesn't mean most everyone else on earth does.
Everyone has a gender identity. Yours is cisgender from what I can tell.
You miss his point. What percentage of men and women identify with what they aren't?
I'm not missing his point. 98% of people identify with a gender, therefore it's ridiculous to compare it to people identifying with chairs, which to my knowledge isn't a common experience.
Trans people, for whatever reason, have a gender identity that is different to what is expected. But they're not unusual in having a gender identity, that's something that most people have.
98% do not "identify" with a gender; they are biologically one or the other, male or female. For them, "identifying" doesn't come into it. They are what they are. Only 2% "identify" with a gender, meaning they choose to believe they are the gender they are not.
This won't work. People who are XY and have an SRY gene can have varying degrees of androgen insensitivity, all the way to complete androgen insensitivity. Literally every single thing about them fits into the bimodal definition of "female" except for two things - no ovaries, and no uterus. They often have very high levels of testosterone, which doesn't do anything to them because they don't have functioning androgen receptors and the negative feedback system doesn't work. So, you can't even use their testosterone level to ban them. The vast majority of these women find out their genetic make up and reality only once they either cannot get pregnant or reach and age old enough to be concerned about never having a period.
How common is this? Complete androgen insensitivity is found at 2-5 per 100,000 XY (with SRY gene) births. That's up to 1 per 20,000. Guaranteed you've seen or known someone with this syndrome. They are often tall, slender, and attractive.
Partial androgen insensitivity is at least as common as the total insensitivity that I described above. Again, the person is chromosomally XY, has a functional SRY gene, but has a mutation in the androgen receptor that allows for some partial response to androgens. Their genitalia can look like anything from typically female to typically male, and just about everything in between.
Both of these conditions fall under the umbrella of Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, or DSD as many are throwing about.
From my understanding of Ross Tucker's analysis of the Semenya case, Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is the most likely scenario for her. My guess is this is the type of scenario for many of the DSD women athletes under current scrutiny, if they are in fact DSD athletes.
I want to address the use of the words men and women when referring to these athletes. They are women. They were identified at birth as girls by their families, by their doctors, by their cultures. They have been raised and brought up as girls and women their entire lives. They have identified as women their entire lives. They did not choose their genetics any more than you or I did. They have always lived and continue to live as women, and that should be recognized. Stop calling them men. I highly doubt any of them decided to engage in athletics as an intentional way to "cheat" as is the implication that many of you are throwing around.
NOW, should the DSD athletes with PAIS be competing in women's sports? Well, probably not without some closer scrutiny, or without some measures taken to control for testosterone levels (since the Partial AIS athletes are still sensitive to androgen in some ways).
See, it is very possible to have a nuanced conversation about this - noting the obvious problem in sport while also recognizing the humanity of the athletes involved. I don't know what the final answer will be for these athletes and for our sport. But we can all at least recognize that these women did not ask for this and be sympathetic to the idea that many may be finding out their genetic makeup through highly publicized and embarrassing testing.
congratualtions on one of the best, most well written, concise, and objectively correct takes on this entire thread.
Nothing like reading through pages of bs and finally finding a golden post like this one.
Arguing semantics of language while conveniently ignoring the facts.
It's not semantics; it's literally people using the wrong definition.
Gender is made up. Sex is not. And it hardly matters because 99.9% of the time a woman is a female and a man is a male.
All this talk is a distraction and has nothing to do with the issue, which is a biological male has a superior advantage to a biological female.in sports. It's as simple as that.
They simply want to make a rule (which makes perfect sense) that biological males cannot compete against females regardless of anyone's stated gender.
It's not true that "98% of people identify with a gender" and that "gender identity" is "something that most people have." Most people on planet earth are aware of their own sex, but very few buy into all the bollox required to have a gender identity.
Yes, it's true that that some people have gender identities, just as some people believe they have souls and others believe in reincarnation. But just because some people have these beliefs doesn't mean most everyone else on earth does.
Everyone has a gender identity. Yours is cisgender from what I can tell.
Stop imposing a gender identity on me!
People who buy into and promote gender identity ideology say that it's very bad form - indeed, it's considered rude and all kinds of phobic - for any of us to assume we know how another person "identifies" or if he/she/they/fey have a certain kind of identity at all.
By definition, "gender identity" is an inner sense of themselves that some individuals hold internally, but which is always determined entirely by and for themselves.
A central precept of gender identity ideology - and of identity politics more generally - is that that no one else has a right to tell other people what their own internal identities are; and no one is under any obligation to reveal to others how they "identify" either.
Indeed, as the world's leading gender theorists and human rights experts state in The Yogyakarta Principles, the universal declaration of human rights pertaining to gender-identity, making assumptions about other individuals' gender and gender identity is a violation of their fundamental human right to privacy and self-definition.
As Medical News Today explains, "Gender is different from sex. Although genetic factors typically define a person’s sex, gender refers to how they identify on the inside. Only the person themselves can determine what their gender identity is."
Oxford defines gender identity as "an individual's personal sense of having a particular gender."
Which raises the question: when people talk about "gender identity" what do they mean by "gender"?
The American Psychological Association says, "Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender‐normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender-nonconformity."
Wikipedia says, "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them."
World Health Organization says, "Gender is a social construction that people typically describe in terms of femininity and masculinity. In Western cultures, people associate femininity with women and masculinity with men, but this social construction varies across cultures... gender is not neatly divided along the binary lines of “man” and “woman.”
In other words, the "gender" part of "gender identity" = the narrow, limiting, chafing set of sex stereotypes, roles and expectations considered appropriate for males and females in any given culture at any particular point in history.
Proclaiming that "everyone has a gender identity" is insisting that everyone on earth places such high value and importance on their culture's and era's sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that they build their entire and most fundamental sense of self on and around them. When in reality, vast swathes of the human race do not construct their self-concepts around sex stereotypes. Many people think sex stereotypes are regressive, oppressive, misogynistic, male-supremacist and basically bollox that are damaging to both sexes but especially harmful to females.
Saying "everyone has a gender identity" is like saying "everyone worships Allah, peace be upon Him" or "everyone has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior" or "everyone believes in Scientology" or "everyone supports the agenda of the US Democratic Party."
Everyone has a gender identity. Yours is cisgender from what I can tell.
Stop imposing a gender identity on me!
People who buy into and promote gender identity ideology say that it's very bad form - indeed, it's considered rude and all kinds of phobic - for any of us to assume we know how another person "identifies" or if he/she/they/fey have a certain kind of identity at all.
By definition, "gender identity" is an inner sense of themselves that some individuals hold internally, but which is always determined entirely by and for themselves.
A central precept of gender identity ideology - and of identity politics more generally - is that that no one else has a right to tell other people what their own internal identities are; and no one is under any obligation to reveal to others how they "identify" either.
Indeed, as the world's leading gender theorists and human rights experts state in The Yogyakarta Principles, the universal declaration of human rights pertaining to gender-identity, making assumptions about other individuals' gender and gender identity is a violation of their fundamental human right to privacy and self-definition.
As Medical News Today explains, "Gender is different from sex. Although genetic factors typically define a person’s sex, gender refers to how they identify on the inside. Only the person themselves can determine what their gender identity is."
Oxford defines gender identity as "an individual's personal sense of having a particular gender."
Which raises the question: when people talk about "gender identity" what do they mean by "gender"?
The American Psychological Association says, "Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender‐normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender-nonconformity."
Wikipedia says, "Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them."
World Health Organization says, "Gender is a social construction that people typically describe in terms of femininity and masculinity. In Western cultures, people associate femininity with women and masculinity with men, but this social construction varies across cultures... gender is not neatly divided along the binary lines of “man” and “woman.”
In other words, the "gender" part of "gender identity" = the narrow, limiting, chafing set of sex stereotypes, roles and expectations considered appropriate for males and females in any given culture at any particular point in history.
Proclaiming that "everyone has a gender identity" is insisting that everyone on earth places such high value and importance on their culture's and era's sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that they build their entire and most fundamental sense of self on and around them. When in reality, vast swathes of the human race do not construct their self-concepts around sex stereotypes. Many people think sex stereotypes are regressive, oppressive, misogynistic, male-supremacist and basically bollox that are damaging to both sexes but especially harmful to females.
Saying "everyone has a gender identity" is like saying "everyone worships Allah, peace be upon Him" or "everyone has accepted Jesus Christ as their savior" or "everyone believes in Scientology" or "everyone supports the agenda of the US Democratic Party."
I'm not imposing anything on you. I did not accidentally write "from what I can tell."
You don't have to place any importance on stereotypes to have a gender identity. Your gender identity is a thing in your brain that everyone has. Because I am cisgender, I feel like I am the gender that matches my sex. The people that don't really feel like they belong with any "stereotypical" gendered behavior/identity would be non-binary. Are you non-binary? Do you not feel like a woman?