Elizabeth Warren weighs in on the issue of transgender athletes dominating women's sports

Elizabeth Warren is a piece of trash. Her supporters are more corrupt than Trump's.

bluecolla wrote:

Hermaphroditism is a biological issue whereas trannies it’s a psychological issue

That still does not change the fact that there is no medical consensus of what constitutues a female. Which means the Arizona law can be easily challenged in court. In reality the Arizona law is just a political stunt

Joplas wrote:

bluecolla wrote:

Hermaphroditism is a biological issue whereas trannies it’s a psychological issue

That still does not change the fact that there is no medical consensus of what constitutues a female. Which means the Arizona law can be easily challenged in court. In reality the Arizona law is just a political stunt

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3408

The courts are supposed to follow the law, not the contrary.

Geronimo Gants wrote:

Joplas wrote:

The Arizona bill requires an athlete invasive gender testing which is ridiculous.

In Connecticut, an athlete can simply identify as female without any medical basis.

These positions are polar opposites, both don't make sense and both are unlikely to withstand legal challenges.

Why can't we just have common sense rules?

Let all XX people compete as women and everyone else compete as men. No invasive gender testing needed.

Its not a perfect rule. But its the only rule that makes sense.

This rule is terrible.

There are real men who are XX chromosomes.

.

I didn't understand the rest of your jibber jabber. But the fact that there are no men who are XX is precisly why Karyotype should be used.

99% of women are 46XX

99% of Men are 46XY

About 1% have other variations such as XXY and so forth.

So just have a simple rule that says if you are 46XX you can compete with women

If you are 46XY uoi must compete with men

If you are somewhere in between then whare you participate can be determined on a case by case basis.

Makes more sense to me. The Arizona bill is a ridiculous political stunt that will be easy circumvented

Joplas wrote:

Geronimo Gants wrote:

There are XX male.

Educate yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

This rule is terrible.

There are real men who are XX chromosomes.

.

I didn't understand the rest of your jibber jabber. But the fact that there are no men who are XX is precisly why Karyotype should be used.

99% of women are 46XX

99% of Men are 46XY

About 1% have other variations such as XXY and so forth.

So just have a simple rule that says if you are 46XX you can compete with women

If you are 46XY uoi must compete with men

If you are somewhere in between then whare you participate can be determined on a case by case basis.

Makes more sense to me. The Arizona bill is a ridiculous political stunt that will be easy circumvented

Joplas wrote:

Geronimo Gants wrote:

This rule is terrible.

There are real men who are XX chromosomes.

.

I didn't understand the rest of your jibber jabber. But the fact that there are no men who are XX is precisly why Karyotype should be used.

99% of women are 46XX

99% of Men are 46XY

About 1% have other variations such as XXY and so forth.

So just have a simple rule that says if you are 46XX you can compete with women

If you are 46XY uoi must compete with men

If you are somewhere in between then whare you participate can be determined on a case by case basis.

Makes more sense to me. The Arizona bill is a ridiculous political stunt that will be easy circumvented

There are XX men.

Educate yourself.

just saying man wrote:

And on another note, I’m curious if you or the other people who truly view them as girls would consider being in a relationship with one?

This seems to be the favorite bogeyman of the day, the same comment appeared on another thread.

You don't have to marry someone to want people to respect and treat them a certain way.

Whether there are XX men is besides the point.

It doesn't change the fact that the new Arizona

As I said, 99% of men are 46XY.

And 99% of women are 46XX

Having a rule that covers 99% of people is more likely to be effective and is likely to stand in court.

Now if you disagree then instead of posting irrelevant scientific facts, why don't you come up with a better proposal

Joplas wrote:

Whether there are XX men is besides the point.

It doesn't change the fact that the new Arizona

As I said, 99% of men are 46XY.

And 99% of women are 46XX

Having a rule that covers 99% of people is more likely to be effective and is likely to stand in court.

Now if you disagree then instead of posting irrelevant scientific facts, why don't you come up with a better proposal

The proposed rule is better.

Check phenotype, check genes, check hormone levels. Everyone who is not all women go with the men (open category)

David S wrote:

just saying man wrote:

And on another note, I’m curious if you or the other people who truly view them as girls would consider being in a relationship with one?

This seems to be the favorite bogeyman of the day, the same comment appeared on another thread.

You don't have to marry someone to want people to respect and treat them a certain way.

I'll take that as a no.

The women should boycott any event with trans athlete.

Geronimo Gants wrote:

[quote]J

The proposed rule is better.

Check phenotype, check genes, check hormone levels. Everyone who is not all women go with the men (open category)

Which hormone levels? Testosterone?

Any Doctor will tell you that it is not clear cut what a woman's testosterone levels are. There are some women whos testosterone levels are well into the male range.

Also Please read the proposed Arizona rule it says

The only way a student could dispute this ban is if they provide a doctor’s statement indicating their sex solely on the basis of their chromosomal makeup, “internal and external reproductive anatomy,” and “normal endogenously produced levels of testosterone.”

It says nothing about genes and phenotype. It clearly states that a physical examination is required. Legally this is problematic because you are demanding that teenagers expose their genitalia to Doctors.

And as I said above there is no medical consensus on which female parts must be present or absent for someone to be declared a biological male.

real talk wrote:

The women should boycott any event with trans athlete.

Yeah, no women's marathon trials next weekend.

Phenotype is the physical aspect, genotype the chromosome and genes, hormones are the testosterone level.

Doctors can examine teenagers, that's their job, it is normal, there is no creepy thing, they are highly professionnal.

These three criteria can cover any problems which could lead to unfair advantages over women.

Geronimo Gants wrote:

Phenotype is the physical aspect, genotype the chromosome and genes, hormones are the testosterone level.

Doctors can examine teenagers, that's their job, it is normal, there is no creepy thing, they are highly professionnal.

These three criteria can cover any problems which could lead to unfair advantages over women.

Not everyone wants to be physically examined by a Doctor. When a Doctor examines your genitals, he must ask your permission. Requiring a trans kid who may be 12 or 13 to be examined by an adult is something some judges will not allow. Heck even grown ups are known to reject such physical exams. Some people just arent comfortable with a Doctor inserting a probe inside their orificies to look for fallopian tubes Ovaries or whatever.

As for physical characterists, please state which physical characteristics.

And please state which testosterone level would qualify a person to be considered female.

It's not up to me to define what level and what physical characteristics would be needed (obviously by characteristic I mean sexual signs and development, not muscles, face, looks or other kind of charasteristics.)

I am just saying that women sport need to be protected from athletes who have male attributes and that selected and certified doctors can come up with well definied criteria.

Geronimo Gants wrote:

It's not up to me to define what level and what physical characteristics would be needed (obviously by characteristic I mean sexual signs and development, not muscles, face, looks or other kind of charasteristics.)

I am just saying that women sport need to be protected from athletes who have male attributes and that selected and certified doctors can come up with well definied criteria.

Since you dont have any answers, you are basically admitting that there is no clear-cut definition of what physical characteristics are male and which hormone levels are male. You have made my point. There is no consensus on any of these issues which is why this new proposal is completely bogus, will not stand in court and will be easily circumvented.

My proposal is not perfect. But its impossible to circumvent and is more likely to withstand a court challenge.

Joplas wrote:

Geronimo Gants wrote:

It's not up to me to define what level and what physical characteristics would be needed (obviously by characteristic I mean sexual signs and development, not muscles, face, looks or other kind of charasteristics.)

I am just saying that women sport need to be protected from athletes who have male attributes and that selected and certified doctors can come up with well definied criteria.

Since you dont have any answers, you are basically admitting that there is no clear-cut definition of what physical characteristics are male and which hormone levels are male. You have made my point. There is no consensus on any of these issues which is why this new proposal is completely bogus, will not stand in court and will be easily circumvented.

My proposal is not perfect. But its impossible to circumvent and is more likely to withstand a court challenge.

If the law is made, then the court will follow the law. That's what courts do.

Geronimo Gants wrote:

If the law is made, then the court will follow the law. That's what courts do.

The courts will not be able to follow the law precisely because the law is poorly written. They have a blanket statement about physical characteristics. But they don't say which physical characteristics. A judge will throw this new bill out the window. It wont stand. We need a simpler well defined rule like the one I proposed.