Lia Thomas exposed 'male genitalia' in women's locker room after meet

This one person does not speak for all intersex people. But here is one voice.

Here is another voice.

It's "activist" to point out that sex is actually a mechanism for passing on genes? This is peak absurdity, and quite frankly, a reversal fo what is actually happening. The postmodern trans activists argue that all knowledge claims are a will to power so that they can smuggle in their political agenda; this way, when people like Marinov point to the evidence (just like Galileo pointed to the evidence showing that the Earth is not the center of the universe), they can dismiss him as an idealogue rather than the person with the most rational and well-supported argument. Notice you have not argued why Marinov is wrong? What is wrong about his argument?

Ha ha ha ha, this idiot is like a slightly more educated version of The Verbose Transphobe, writing on and on about irrelevant basic biology to try to show off their chops for what is very plainly a philosophical position.

Hidden deep in all the pretensive biology lecture is the author’s inability to sustain his basic thesis of the binary, a thesis that is further premised on an a philosophy of the purpose of life embraced by eugenicists, a philosophy that would declare homosexuals and infertile men and women not worthy of life, (and presumably) liberty and pursuit of happiness.

”These conditions present with a variety of phenotypes intermediate between typical male and female features, but they have one crucial commonality—individuals afflicted are almost invariably sterile; on the few occasions where fertility is possible, the phenotypes are mild and it is hard to even call them “intersex.””

Both are so obviously biologically male

How Big was it?

I like how conservatives are fans of collegiate swimming all of a sudden.

Either that, or simply pro-(real)women.

I will happily explain why I believe it's a pretty sure bet that Dutee Chand has both a Y and an X sex chromosome, rather than having a karyotype that is X only.

But explaining this properly requires using more than a few words - and you already have said numerous times on this and other threads that you can't or won't read any posts of mine that you regard as too long and verbose. Which leaves me in a bit of bind.

But I will soon post to put this matter to rest anyway. No doubt you'll refuse to read my post - and once again, you'll lambaste it and me for being too long-winded too. Because in your view, having an extremely short-attention span is apparently something to be proud of and brag about on public message boards. And apparently you think being unable to tolerate and take in any in-depth discussion of sex and gender matters is something to bray and thump your chest about too.

But I'll share what I have to say about Chand's karyotype anyways. Coz I know there are people reading this thread who are capable of approaching the complex topics of sex and gender with more consideration, patience, curiosity and reading comprehension than you.

This one sentence would’ve sufficed, even just the words “pretty sure bet” to say you can’t actually put up.

Let me break it down for you: every human being who has ever existed is a product of a sperm uniting with an egg. Two gametes come together to create a new organism. Binary. No human being has ever come into existence any other way.

The existence of people who cannot produce sperm or eggs or cannot successfully pass on their genes in no way disproves the assertion that sex is binary. In fact, these exceptions prove the rule--the rule being that to pass on one's genes through sexual reproduction, one has to be male (produce sperm) or female (produce eggs).

You are the one who cannot sustain a basic thesis, who cannot see the forest for the trees.

And once again, there is psychological projection happening here. Marinov never said that people with intersex conditions should be abolished. He's not making a moral claim at all. Oftentimes, the people who conflate the labeling of a disorder or the assertion of difference with a moral sight are those who are the most bigoted. This happens all the time with arguments about women's sports. Some people cannot accept that women are on average slower and weaker than men because they equate this difference with moral inferiority.

Lastly, let's address the most absurd projection happening here: you are arguing on the side of people using technology to radically tinker with human bodies--disrupting hormone feedback loops, removing organs, promoting uterine transplants into male bodies, making flesh sculptures out of healthy human bodies--and you're accusing a geneticist who is simply describing how genes work of being a eugenicist?

Right after that passage, he also wrote this.

Their evolutionary fitness is therefore as negative as fitness could possibly be short of being stillborn.

He compared infertility to "devastating congenital deformities and diseases".

It is possible for a ondition that is a debilitating disease under some circumstances to be beneficial under others (e.g. sickle-cell anemia and malaria). But this does not apply to the inability to produce viable gametes, which makes one unable to reproduce under all circumstances.

True hermaphrodites possessing both sets of functional gonads and genitalia have never been observed in Homo sapiens.

But people with both ovary and testes DO exist, although they are not functional. So he dismisses those actual human beings as irrelevant because they cannot reproduce.

And all this based on the following premise.

However, to the extent we can speak of “purpose” in biology, the relationship is exactly the opposite—the organism exists to propagate its genetic material, and this is the sole “meaning” of its existence.

Dawkins talked about the sole purpose of "genes' here, but Marinov twists it to imply this is the sole purpose of our existence.

No, he is not saying that. He is saying that intersex people will "abolish" themselves because they cannot reproduce. They will not be able to pass on their "intersex genes" to offspring, because those genes are inferior.

Therefore, he believes those people should be considered irrelevant and we should pretend they did not exist. He is not advocating to physically erasing them, but he is advocating to erase them from our public consciousness.

Again, you are the person assigning moral value here, not Marinov. In evolutionary terms, the only thing that matters is whether one passes on their genes. This is the brutal truth of biological existence. It is in no way a prescription for how society should treat people who cannot or do not reproduce.

It's true that Chand has never revealed the results of the sex chromosome and genetic testing - or of any of other battery of tests such as abdominal imaging by sonogram and a gynecological exam - that Chand underwent in 2014 at the behest of Indian sports authorities who soon afterwards banned Chand from competing in all/any women's events.

But the testimony, arguments and rulings in Chand's legal case against the IAAF and the Indian sports authorities who issued the ban make it clear that Chand was found to have T levels of over 10 nmol/L. At the time of Chand's ban and court case, 10 nmol/L was the upper limit allowed by the IAAF for anyone in women's elite athletics competition.

Chand acknowledged having T levels over the 10 nmol/L cutoff from the start of the legal proceedings. The fact that Chand has T levels above 10 nmol/L was taken as a given by all parties in Chand's case; no one on Chand's side ever disputed this.

In order to have T levels over 10 nmol/L, Chand has to have male gonads, testes, that are fully-developed and normally functioning enough that they produce testosterone in the range that's only found in males.

The reference ranges that WA/the IAAF uses say that the normal level for endogenous T in males age 18 and up is 7.7-29.4 nmol/L; and the normal level for endogenous T in females 18 and up (born with ovaries and with one or both ovaries still present) is 0.02-1.68 nmol/L.

There are a number of health conditions that cause unusually high levels of endogenous T in females, aka "hyperandrogenism." But women with these conditions - PCOS, classic CAH, LOCAH, endocrine tumors, pregnancy - still won't have T levels near or above 10 nmol/L like Chand. Females with hyperandrogegism rarely have T levels that come close to half that level - and any woman or girl found to have a T level of 5 nmol//L will be in need of urgent evaluation for a serious health problem that could be life-threatening.

To have an SRY gene and testes capable of producing T at or above 10 nmol/L, Chand would have to have a male karyotype. This would mostly likely mean 46,XY, by far the most common male karyotype - or a perhaps a form of male mosaicism that would cause Chand to have a Y chromosome and functioning SRY gene in a majority of Chand's cells, such as 46,XY/46,XX or 46,XY/47,XXY.

But to develop physically in the way Chand has, Chand also has to have a mutation of the androgen receptor (AR) gene that causes some of Chand's AR cells not to work properly. Having a faulty AR gene would leave Chand unable to make use of the massive amounts of T that Chand's testes produce in all the ways and to the same extent customarily seen in males without DSDs.

In other words, Chand has to have some degree of the disorder known as "androgen insensitivity syndrome" or AIS. But at the same time, Chand can't have complete AIS, aka CAIS, or near-complete AIS. Because athletes with those conditions have not been subject to restrictions in women's elite athletics since the landmark case of Maria Jose Martinez Patino in the late 1980s. (BTW, Martinez Patino testified against Chand's position in Chand's court case.)

Significantly, the genetic mutations that cause AIS only affect the sex development of males, so AIS is a male-only DSD.

Because the AR gene is on the X chromosome, many female humans have the same exact AR gene mutations that cause AIS DSD in males; in fact, the majority of cases of AIS DSD come from males inheriting a mutated AR gene directly from their mothers. But the mutations of the AR gene that many females have don't cause a DSD in females because female sex development does not depend on the ability to make or utilize testosterone and other androgens.

Moreover, because females have two X chromosomes, chances are that even if we have a faulty AR gene on one X chromosome, the AR gene on our other X chromosome will be normal and it will be the AR gene that is operational in all our cells.

Theoretically, I suppose, Chand could have any one of the many other karyotypes containing one or more Y chromosomes with an SRY gene such as 47,XXY; 48, XXXY; 47,XYY; 48,XXYY; 48,XYYY. But people with these karyotypes are all obvious males whose phenotypes are very different to Chand's. Most people with these other, unusual male karyotypes have developmental problems and ongoing health issues that Chand clearly doesn't have too.

Theoretically I guess it's possible that Chand could also be 46,XX and SRY positive due to an SRY gene from Chand's father somehow ending up on the X chromosome the father contributed. But if Chand has a second X chromosome, chances are nil or close to it that Chand would have AIS causing Chand to be unable to respond to and utilize all of Chand's testicular T in the customary ways that people with the SRY gene do.

AFAIK, there's never been a single case reported of an XX person with a faulty AR gene on both X chromosomes. If I am wrong about this, I apologize ahead of time.

Probably because only stupid republicans are worried about 1 trans athlete in all of the sports. It is a nonissue but have fun being broke in your miserable conservative state with your litter of uneducated children inhaling fumes from your neighbors meth house.

So then it is utterly irrelevant to this thread or any sociopolitical issue of how to treat non-binaries, right? Let’s not act fresh here: that’s not why you cited the article and that’s clearly not why he wrote the article.

There’s the weakest of all arguments that always comes out of these debates. I knew we’d hear it eventually, we always do. Heck, maybe this isn’t even the first time in this thread as it winds toward 20 pages.