I hope that this sticks and that other organizations at national and sub-national levels follow suit. Seems like a no-brainer issue that for some reason has been amplified to 11, almost as if to sow discord. I don't care at all how someone wants to "identify," and definitely don't think it's the role of politicians to make rules about it, but trans women and DSD women have a clear advantage and have no place in women's sports. I hope that this marks a broader social shift and that we can just put an end to this conversation already and move on to more important things. (I am solidly left of center, too, btw)
-
273
-
--
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.10 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
xy vs xx wrote:
The odds of them being DSD are the odds of Kipyegon being DSD. 0%.
Kipyegon has given birth. But any female athlete who has never been pregnant can potentially have DSD. It is extremely naive to think otherwise.
It's not just pregnancy. If a female athlete has gotten her period then she is not DSD.
I don't know what every sport in the world is doing about this issue, but ALL track and field athletes that are currently competing at the world class level have been tested for their testosterone levels. And any world class female athlete with higher than normal testosterone levels would have already had to undergo further tests to determine if they had DSD or not.
So the chances of a world class track and field athlete having DSD and being allowed to compete in the female category in 2026 is basically zero.
194 -
samcallan wrote:
bhah wrote:
Yes, there isn’t an inherently compelling philosophical argument to decide that any specific subset of genes is the sacrosanct delimiter of eligibility in a category for purposes of fairness. It is ultimately a societal choice, and right now, the political climate has taken back that societal choice to the previous century’s policies.
Can someone translate this?
I think this is less a "political" choice as this sort of ruling at least in the US has widespread acceptance from across the political spectrum. The motivations might be different, but the outcome is the same.
The issue is no longer about "who has unfair advantage in women's sports." It is next to impossible to determine that. (See the Emma Hilton piece you cited above.)
The current issue is about "who belongs to a category defined as women." A trans woman in women's sports would displace a cis woman from the podium, a spot in the final, a berth in the state championship, etc. regardless of whether she has any advantage. And that is considered unacceptable by people who do not believe she belongs in the category.
And how we define a "woman" is ultimately a social question. A person with CAIS is genetically male, but we have decided she is a woman for social reasons. The same for a person with Swyer syndrome. They fit better in our society as women than as men.
620 -
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
Discus,
Good news. Unfair is unfair.
83 -
Dims in tears ... NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
712 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
samcallan wrote:
Can someone translate this?
I think this is less a "political" choice as this sort of ruling at least in the US has widespread acceptance from across the political spectrum. The motivations might be different, but the outcome is the same.
The issue is no longer about "who has unfair advantage in women's sports." It is next to impossible to determine that. (See the Emma Hilton piece you cited above.)
The current issue is about "who belongs to a category defined as women." A trans woman in women's sports would displace a cis woman from the podium, a spot in the final, a berth in the state championship, etc. regardless of whether she has any advantage. And that is considered unacceptable by people who do not believe she belongs in the category.
And how we define a "woman" is ultimately a social question. A person with CAIS is genetically male, but we have decided she is a woman for social reasons. The same for a person with Swyer syndrome. They fit better in our society as women than as men.
Chromosomes work 99.999% of the time. Not difficult.
162 -
Orlando's Bloom wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
The Algerian boxer was assigned female at birth, raised as a girl, and self-identifies as a woman. So she is the very definition of a cisgender woman.
But she will be banned under this policy. I am not sure about the boxer from Chinese Taipei.
That will be why the very conservative men from her own country were regularly pictured carrying her aloft on their shoulders, when their own religious and social rules prevent them from doing so? Do you remember the death threats they sent to Hassiba Boulmerka, who had to train in Germany because her own countrymen didn't think she should wear shorts in public? Your argument is completley implausible.
Do you think a conservative Muslim country would choose a transgender athlete to represent their country in the Olympics?
313 -
DJT:
Congratulations to the International Olympic Committee on their decision to ban Men from Women’s Sports. This is only happening because of my powerful Executive Order, standing up for Women and Girls! President DONALD J. TRUMP
1012 -
eagleeye wrote:
I’m sure this will go over completely fine. Can somebody tell me why they are doing this? What transgender athlete has won a gold medal at any sport in the last 20 years? Why are we not doing genetic testing for men too to make sure nobody has genetic advantages in the male category? If Usain Bolt was born with a genetic mutation that makes his ceiling higher than other men, all his records should be removed because that’s an unfair advantage.
It isn't about genetic advantage, because that would rule out most athletes at this level. They all have genetic advantages. It is differences based on biological sex. That seems to matter when you have a "female" category.
242 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Melissa Bishop wrote:
No, "self identification" does not make someone a cisgender female.
"Being assigned female at birth" does.
No one is "assigned" female at birth. They are born female.
249 -
Sonnys wrote:
Dims in tears ... NOOOOOOOOO!!!!
These Sick people really have chosen some Cray Cray hills to die on. Biological men can play women's sports. Abolish the police. Illegal aliens. Hiding fraud. Shame.
1612 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
Orlando's Bloom wrote:
That will be why the very conservative men from her own country were regularly pictured carrying her aloft on their shoulders, when their own religious and social rules prevent them from doing so? Do you remember the death threats they sent to Hassiba Boulmerka, who had to train in Germany because her own countrymen didn't think she should wear shorts in public? Your argument is completley implausible.
Do you think a conservative Muslim country would choose a transgender athlete to represent their country in the Olympics?
This ruling effects trans women and DSD XY so the question you ask is irrelevant because Imane Khelif belongs to the latter category.
112 -
This ruling effectively rules out another clown show like the 2016 Olympic WOMEN'S 800m final where ALL 3 podium finishers were DSD athletes! It also prevents situations like the Toyko Olympics where complete nobody teenage African runners start crushing 48 second 400s. Once they were found to be dsd athletes, they were banned from the 400m races, so they jumped down to the 200m event and ran 21 seconds within weeks, taking an Olympic silver out of thin air! Completely ridiculous!
322 -
BTW, the 2016 Women's Olympic 800m champion is really Melissa Bishop of Canada. 😀🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦
243 -
Women are women, men are men, despite long explanations with big words.
128 -
Melissa Bishop wrote:
eagleeye wrote:
Why are we not doing genetic testing for men too to make sure nobody has genetic advantages in the male category?
If Usain Bolt was born with a genetic mutation that makes his ceiling higher than other men, all his records should be removed because that’s an unfair advantage.
You're confused. There were a number of athletes in various sports (such as Caster Semenya but also many others) that were not born female with a genetic mutation, but were born male with a genetic mutation. And being male with a genetic mutation was enough to get a biological male into the female category.
Now that the IOC has made a blanket decision for ALL sports that prohibit ALL biological males from participating in the female category, each sport doesn't have to make it's own rules, because the IOC has made that rule for them.
You will still need to test to define male. Its gets real hard with some DSD athletes who are in reality the ones that get left behind. But I am in no way saying they should have been in female races. there are people that it is super difficult to call them male vs female and how we want to define that. T levels, genetic testing....
72 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
"Being assigned female at birth" does.
No one is "assigned" female at birth. They are born female.
Not true. There are mutations and DSDs that make it hard. Often a choice has to made at birth and that can be quite random. If you want to pick at people choose the trans athletes that know perfectly well what they are doing. There are athletes with all sorts of genetic issues that get caught out in all this. You have to feel for them on some level. Its fortunately super rare to have these mutations and be fast enough for it to be relevant
103 -
bigmig19 wrote:
Melissa Bishop wrote:
You're confused. There were a number of athletes in various sports (such as Caster Semenya but also many others) that were not born female with a genetic mutation, but were born male with a genetic mutation. And being male with a genetic mutation was enough to get a biological male into the female category.
Now that the IOC has made a blanket decision for ALL sports that prohibit ALL biological males from participating in the female category, each sport doesn't have to make it's own rules, because the IOC has made that rule for them.
You will still need to test to define male. Its gets real hard with some DSD athletes who are in reality the ones that get left behind. But I am in no way saying they should have been in female races. there are people that it is super difficult to call them male vs female and how we want to define that. T levels, genetic testing....
It's not hard. You test for a functional SRY gene, it's a pretty simple test these days.
If you've got one, you can't compete with the women.
(Unless as mentioned earlier, you have a diagnosis of CAIS, and then you can)
111
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.