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.
So you've found a post that accords with your own views.
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.
You also missed the response from Runragged that pointed out its errors.
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.
So you've found a post that accords with your own views.
Sometimes it's nice when someone with more time/cares more/isn't a regular troll comes along and does a good job outlining the points you would like to make in a longer form. I could sit here and write essays like some people do but it's just not fun.
So you've found a post that accords with your own views.
Sometimes it's nice when someone with more time/cares more/isn't a regular troll comes along and does a good job outlining the points you would like to make in a longer form. I could sit here and write essays like some people do but it's just not fun.
Essays aren't necessarily convincing - or correct.
Sometimes it's nice when someone with more time/cares more/isn't a regular troll comes along and does a good job outlining the points you would like to make in a longer form. I could sit here and write essays like some people do but it's just not fun.
Essays aren't necessarily convincing - or correct.
Nothing is convincing because everyone thinks they are correct already. I greatly appreciate the essay people because I usually learn something from it if they are well written. I've learned more about sex differences from RunRagged than I ever knew before. Male babies have 12% bigger ventricles or something? It's very interesting
Essays aren't necessarily convincing - or correct.
Nothing is convincing because everyone thinks they are correct already. I greatly appreciate the essay people because I usually learn something from it if they are well written. I've learned more about sex differences from RunRagged than I ever knew before. Male babies have 12% bigger ventricles or something? It's very interesting
Are you saying your mind is made up already and nothing will change it, or that posters like Runragged will - at least on some of the details?
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.
This is the basis of why people identify as non-binary. If they feel no gender adequately represents them, then they'll ask to be referred to as they/them to avoid the stereotypes of one gender.
Society creates two genders with a set of expected behavior, roles and stereotypes. However very few people fit into these. For most that doesn't cause distress however for some who's natural disposition is completely at odds with what is expected of them, they begin to feel they are more closely aligned with the other gender. We call that being transgender.
You're free to argue that we should just all be ourselves and free of binary categories, but that is at odds with everything you've posted previously.
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.
Regarding the term "cisgender" specifically:
American Psychological Association says that "cisgender" means
"having or relating to a GENDER IDENTITY that corresponds to the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with.) A cisgender man or cisgender woman is thus one whose internal gender identity matches, and presents itself in accordance with, the externally determined cultural expectations of the behavior and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex as male or female."
In other words, "cisgender" = people who conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that their own culture associates with, and imposes upon, males and females in the particular time in history in which those persons are living.
But people who "identify as cisgender" or who have a "cisgender gender identity" like you say I do go even further.
When people claim they or others "identify as cisgender," they are not referring to people who happen to conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that their own culture/era has for their particular sex for whatever reason. Including because they've been forced or coerced and feel they have no choice in the matter.
The fact is, hundreds of millions of people on planet earth whom you call "cisgender" only conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations their cultures impose on them because if they don't, they will be criticized, shamed, ostracized, bullied, punished, beaten and/or even killed. Such strict sanctions are unfortunately placed on all girls and women as well as many gay men and boys who live in parts of the world where religious authorities, governments, families and communities all take hardline positions about enforcing sexist, misogynistic and homophobic laws and customs. Similar sorts of strict sanctions - though usually sans the murders of girls and women known as "honor killings" and the death sentences for having homosexual sex - are placed on large numbers of girls, women and some boys and men in particular individual households, local communities and subcultures even in the generally more freedom-affording nations of the West.
People who "identify as cisgender" and have a "cisgender identity" are explicitly those who not only conform to their culture's sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations, but who also consider their culture's sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations so important, valuable and sacrosanct - and personally hold them so dear - that they make them central and fundamental to their own internal sense of self.
So stop telling me I have a "cisgender" gender identity. When you do that, you are "misgendering" me. "Misgendering" is a cardinal sin according to tenets of the Church of Genderology - and it's supposedly against LRC rules, besides.
Moreover, I am just one of millions of women worldwide who consider it extremely insulting, demeaning and arrogant for total strangers like you to tell us that our basic internal sense of self is - and must be - built on and centered around the set of sexist, misogynistic, confining sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that others try to impose on us.
Nothing is convincing because everyone thinks they are correct already. I greatly appreciate the essay people because I usually learn something from it if they are well written. I've learned more about sex differences from RunRagged than I ever knew before. Male babies have 12% bigger ventricles or something? It's very interesting
Are you saying your mind is made up already and nothing will change it, or that posters like Runragged will - at least on some of the details?
My mind is certainly not made up but I have spent a lot of time solidifying my ideas and positions and it would be difficult for someone to change my mind. It has been done though several times by anonymous people online. At the very least, even if someone doesn't change my mind, I value learning more about why they hold their position. This is assuming their position is logically consistent and they aren't just some moron spouting dumb stuff like the earth is flat.
The current WA rules don’t have any limits for testosterone in cis women, only for trans and intersex, so cis women can claim a “natural gift” if they happen to have high endogenous T. I don’t think any camp is particularly lobbying for that aspect to change.
But women who have high endogenous T do not customarily view it as a "natural gift." Nor do women customarily believe or claim that high natural T gives us an advantage in sports.
Elevated endogenous T in women and girls is caused by very well-known health conditions - PCOS, CAH, pregnancy and testosterone-secreting endocrine tumors. These health conditions do not enhance female sports performance. On the contrary, they tend to impair it.
Female bodies do not respond to and utilize the natural T that comes from our ovaries, adrenal glands and fat in the same exact ways that male bodies respond to the natural T that comes from their/your testes. There is some overlap in some aspects, but there are many more differences than similarities. If female bodies did respond to our elevated natural T as male bodies do, then pregnant women - who all develop markedly elevated natural T in the course of pregnancy - would all be packing on muscle, getting leaner, experiencing cracking and deepening voices, and developing BO.
The very different ways that males and females respond to our own elevated levels of natural T is one of the reasons all the focus on T levels of XY athletes in women's sports is so maddening to so many women. No female person could have the T levels that XY DSD athletes and XY trans athlete have, and are allowed to have per the rules, without being extremely ill with a life-threatening endocrine tumor.
Huh, your post appears to have nothing to do with my point about WA rules in response to another poster’s seemingly implicit assumption that there is a T limit for cis women.
My post has nothing to do with AIS conditions. You are incorrect if you think endogenous T doesn’t confer an advantage to women in sports. See the paper posted on the first page for example.
That is not my point. My point was that WA has already revised its rule books to eliminate anything that sounds like sex verification and simply takes a trans woman’s word for her identity, but has instead shifted its language to prescribe “eligibility requirements” for some women.
A third category is entirely possible in the future. With two categories, it is my opinion that WA would find it difficult to reconcile “yes, you are a woman” with “but you have permanently lost the right to compete as a woman”. I could be wrong of course.
That's exactly the argument IAAF made in the Chand case (but did not in the Semenya case). They made it clear it was a matter of a female athlete's eligibility in the female category.
"You are a woman, but you cannot compete in the women's category" is a perfectly legitimate argument. I have already given two examples of para eligibility and FIBA nationality rule.
That’s not “exactly the argument” anymore because the rule books have been revised to say under what realistically achievable physiological constraints DSD athletes can compete as women, the ongoing disputes being about those athletes not wanting to change their current natural hormonal levels, not about it being impossible for them to go back in time and do so.
I don’t consider the unrelated analogies as relevant because analogies (“I feel like a chair does not make me a chair”) are often an exercise in stretching beyond the breaking point when people have differing opinions on the final outcome, which in this case is a speculative one about the future, so it’s easier to just agree to disagree.
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.
No. They are not denying them participation in sport, and they have never been denied participation in sport. They are always welcome to participate in the sport that matches their biology. Because the dividing line in sports is based upon biology, because it is the biological differences that dictates that there be separate divisions in the first place.
Everyone has a gender identity. Yours is cisgender from what I can tell.
Regarding the term "cisgender" specifically:
American Psychological Association says that "cisgender" means
"having or relating to a GENDER IDENTITY that corresponds to the culturally determined gender roles for one’s birth sex (i.e., the biological sex one was born with.) A cisgender man or cisgender woman is thus one whose internal gender identity matches, and presents itself in accordance with, the externally determined cultural expectations of the behavior and roles considered appropriate for one’s sex as male or female."
In other words, "cisgender" = people who conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that their own culture associates with, and imposes upon, males and females in the particular time in history in which those persons are living.
But people who "identify as cisgender" or who have a "cisgender gender identity" like you say I do go even further.
When people claim they or others "identify as cisgender," they are not referring to people who happen to conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that their own culture/era has for their particular sex for whatever reason. Including because they've been forced or coerced and feel they have no choice in the matter.
The fact is, hundreds of millions of people on planet earth whom you call "cisgender" only conform to the sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations their cultures impose on them because if they don't, they will be criticized, shamed, ostracized, bullied, punished, beaten and/or even killed. Such strict sanctions are unfortunately placed on all girls and women as well as many gay men and boys who live in parts of the world where religious authorities, governments, families and communities all take hardline positions about enforcing sexist, misogynistic and homophobic laws and customs. Similar sorts of strict sanctions - though usually sans the murders of girls and women known as "honor killings" and the death sentences for having homosexual sex - are placed on large numbers of girls, women and some boys and men in particular individual households, local communities and subcultures even in the generally more freedom-affording nations of the West.
People who "identify as cisgender" and have a "cisgender identity" are explicitly those who not only conform to their culture's sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations, but who also consider their culture's sexist sex stereotypes, roles and expectations so important, valuable and sacrosanct - and personally hold them so dear - that they make them central and fundamental to their own internal sense of self.
So stop telling me I have a "cisgender" gender identity. When you do that, you are "misgendering" me. "Misgendering" is a cardinal sin according to tenets of the Church of Genderology - and it's supposedly against LRC rules, besides.
Moreover, I am just one of millions of women worldwide who consider it extremely insulting, demeaning and arrogant for total strangers like you to tell us that our basic internal sense of self is - and must be - built on and centered around the set of sexist, misogynistic, confining sex stereotypes, roles and expectations that others try to impose on us.
Again, I am not misgendering you. I'm calling you "she" instead of "he." If you've been misleading this whole time and your internal gender identity does not match your biological sex, you are safe to disclose that information to me. I will not judge you and will do my absolute best to accommodate you. I promise I won't lose my mind if you use the men's bathroom.
I highlighted where I think you're making a giant leap. A person can be cisgender while not conforming to sexist stereotypes. Plenty of women who identify as women hate pink, aren't caretakers, want to fight people, or literally whatever dumb stereotype you want to throw in there, and yet they still identify as women. There's clearly a factor beyond just "Wow I really like baseball so that must mean I'm a dude."
The text you cited states, "internal gender identity," meaning the gender that your brain thinks you are. For most people, it matches their biological sex. A small percentage (still millions) of people have it flipped or have none at all. Maybe you would call these people disordered and that's fine I don't really care, but their existence unequivocally proves that our brains operate with a gender identity.
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.
This is the basis of why people identify as non-binary. If they feel no gender adequately represents them, then they'll ask to be referred to as they/them to avoid the stereotypes of one gender.
Society creates two genders with a set of expected behavior, roles and stereotypes. However very few people fit into these. For most that doesn't cause distress however for some who's natural disposition is completely at odds with what is expected of them, they begin to feel they are more closely aligned with the other gender. We call that being transgender.
You're free to argue that we should just all be ourselves and free of binary categories, but that is at odds with everything you've posted previously.
Huh? Pretty much everything I've ever posted on LRC has been about the human sex binary that causes female and male people to be physically different in innumerable ways - most obviously during/after puberty of adolescence but also during gestation in utero, in infancy and in childhood.
Because of these physical sex differences, I believe that there is ample sound reason to have two separate categories in sports based solely on participants' biological sex.
I have always been consistent about being against sports eligibility rules that allow, or would allow, athletes into the women's and girls' category based on criteria other than their biological sex being female. I don't care if competitors in the women's and girls' division are tomboys or "girly girls," stone butch lesbians or het women who more or less conform to gender norms. So long as they are female, they belong in women's and girls sports. The gender identity, gender expression, gender presentation etc of female athletes is not something I give a hoot about.
Moreover, I believe that for the purposes of sports, it's high time that sports governing bodies, XY DSD athletes like Caster Semenya, and the general public finally face up to the fact that athletes like Semenya are biological males with well-understood disorders of male sex development. Not "women with naturally high testosterone" or "female DSD athletes" with disorders of female sex development. Not "intersex" with a mix of sex characteristics so extensive, confusing and unfathomable that they do not fit in either sex category. They are simply males who were born with their testes undescended and with penises that were minuscule, slightly malformed or missing altogether.
No matter what anyone might have thought when these athletes were born or little kids, how they say they were raised, or how some of them see themselves, the truth is that XY DSD athletes like Semenya, Chand, Niyonsaba et al are not female. As a result, they have been shoehorned into the wrong category of sports.
In my posts on LRC, I have always opposed making classifications in sports based on gender categories - be they the longstanding binary category of masculine/feminine, or the growing number of newfangled gender categories such as aporagender, maverique, neutrois, gender fluid.
I don't think matters such as gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, relationship status, hair style, dress style, grooming habits should have any bearing on sports eligibility and classification. I believe that male and female humans can have any type of personality and should be free to dress, groom, behave, date, love, mate and express themselves as they wish without hewing to standards of gender. So long, that is, that their manner of dress and behavior doesn't impinge on other people's rights, isn't criminal and is situation-appropriate. By situation appropriate, I mean nobody should be showing up at school, the office or the PTA dressed in fetish gear or like a stripper in stage attire.
My beef is with males who've been through male puberties of infancy and adolescence being allowed to horn in on the female category of sports because they were born with atypical urogenital anatomy due to disorders of male sex development - and/or they were born with normal male urogenital anatomy but now claim to "identify as" girls/women, they choose to dress and present in line with the stereotypes associated with females, and they have managed to obtain identity documents listing their sex as opposite to what it actually is.
"Society creates two genders with a set of expected behavior, roles and stereotypes. However very few people fit into these."(quote)
"Society" doesn't create two genders - nature does. Male and female. "Very few people fit into these"? You're surely joking. Very few see themselves as male or female? What weird universe do you inhabit?
Everyone has a gender identity. Yours is cisgender from what I can tell.
So stop telling me I have a "cisgender" gender identity. When you do that, you are "misgendering" me. "Misgendering" is a cardinal sin according to tenets of the Church of Genderology - and it's supposedly against LRC rules, besides.
You are cisgender alright, honey. By definition of that term that you yourself cited and by your own admission of being a menstruating woman and mother and having never identified as anything other than the gender consistent with your sex at birth. You don’t get protections from a church you mock. If being called cisgender aggrieves you, it serves you right given that you blatantly insist on referring to people identifying as women as men all the time.
You are welcome to openly identify as something other than cisgender and we are happy to consider you trans.
For a movement so vocal about choosing your own terms, you sure do like to inflict labels on people. She doesn't use the term cisgender to label herself, end of.
BTW, the only reason that testosterone levels became such an issue in women's sports is because in the 1990s sports authorities at orgs like the IAAF and IOC decided to change the rules so as to make it possible for XY athletes with disorders of male sex development who wanted to compete in women's sports to be able to do so.
Prior to the landmark case in which XY DSD athlete Maria Jose Martinez Patino of Spain challenged the rules of the IAAF and IOC in the late 80s-early 90s, women's competition was meant to be for athletes born with female sex chromosomes, genetics, anatomy and physiology. But during and after the MP case, the women's category was redefined and expanded so that women's sports were for athletes born with X chromosomes, ovaries and no SRY gene and AS WELL AS FOR for athletes with XY chromosomes, the SRY gene and fully-developed, functioning testes who have disorders of male sex development that caused them to be born with atypical external genitals.
To make it easier for XY DSD athletes to compete in women's sports, sports governing bodies decided to completely change the eligibility criteria for female competition to be all about the levels of the natural form of the predominant sex hormone in males, testosterone.
In males, natural T made by the testes is the major controller and driver of development and a key factor in health, fitness and wellbeing at crucial stages of life - during gestation in utero, the male mini puberty of infancy in the first year of life, and puberty of adolescence and beyond. But natural T made by females - only half of which comes from the ovaries, the other half of female T comes from the adrenals and fat - appears to play relatively little role in female development, physiology, anatomy and sports performance.
The time in the life of females when natural endogenous T seems to play the largest and most crucial role is during pregnancy, which is the one time in life when women can be certain to have markedly elevated testosterone. But the high natural T that women have when pregnant seems to be mainly or solely for the benefit of our developing offspring, not for our own benefit. Despite the fact that during pregnancy women's natural testosterone range is 1.7-4.2 nmol/L compared to 0.2-1.68 normally, it's not customary for women to get more fit and muscular over the course of pregnancy. Nor is it customary for women to perform better in sports when pregnant either.
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 like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba, Cece Telfer and June Eastwood, then there'd be no more need to have any discussions about the natural testosterone levels of competitors in women's and girls' competition. This would eliminate a whole lot of tiresome convos that not only provide zero insight into the health, physiology and sports performance of female athletes, but which actually distract everyone in sports from looking into and discussing matters pertaining specifically to physical factors that affect the sports performance of female athletes.
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.
Of course, barring XY athletes like Semenya, Niyonsaba, Seyni, Mboma, Masilingi and Telfer, Eastwood, Andraya Yearwood, Terry Miller and Meghan Youngren from girls' and women's competition wouldn't stop people from looking at competitors in the female category with a critical, sexist and fault-finding eye - and it wouldn't put an end to all the body policing and body shaming girls and women in at athletics commonly get. Nor would it stop female runners and other female athletes from the endless sexualized commentary, inappropriate remarks and sexual harassment we get from males who see us engaging in sports activities. But it certainly would put a stop to people wondering if various athletes in women's and girls competition really are female.
Another benefit of changing the rules to bar all XY athletes who've been through male puberties of infancy and adolescence from girls' and women's competition is that it would give a clearer picture of which athletes in female competition are doping.
With respect to testosterone-enhanced performance, I take it that you do not agree with the conclusions of the author of the 2019 study, "Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study". This is not the study Pielke debunked, but am not sure if others have. In any case, Hirschberg said,
"The improvement in endurance performance by the increased testosterone levels was more than 8% – this is a huge effect in sports.”
(They noted, however, no difference in power/strength tasks.) Prof. Chris Cooper of U of Essex is also quoted in the Guardian article below,
“The data is really clear. This adds further evidence that if you give testosterone to female athletes, you improve their performance. Some people have suggested that testosterone is not the only sex difference, but it’s clearly the best indicator.”
Although I am a bit skeptical, it is findings like this which lead me to wonder if unusually high levels of endogenous testosterone are more beneficial, and common among unambiguously female athletes, than we realize, and that the androgen gap to the DSD athletes is not quite as wide as we imagine.
If someone is born with a Y chromosome --> they are MALE!
All Y chromosome hermaphrodites must run with other males. If they try to run with females they should be immediately prevented from doing so.
Political correctness is the only reason, this ridiculous issue is being taken to court and millions of dollars are being spent on legal fees.
So happy that Seb Coe has the wisdom and confidence to stand up to all politically correct a-holes and put an end to this nonsense once and for all.
All Y chromosome athletes are banned from ALL female events: track and field.
Exactly - if you have a Y chromosome, you don't compete in a women's event. Call it open and XX if you want. Or call it Men's, XX and others (3 categories). Or just say that for the purposes of athletics/track and field, women's is defined as XX. And I am told chromosomal tests are not intrusive.
If people who identify as a woman are offended by not being able to compete in a women's event, you can go to the absurd extreme of having Men's and XX at the Olympics - next up, we have Sydney McLaughlin in the XX 400m hurdles...
