come up with lame lines like:"I wonder why anti-trans people are so eager to deny the existence of intersex people. What are they afraid of? Does their anti-trans ideology depends on the absence of intersex people?"
Here, this is easy to settle: just say the following and I’ll grant you this one: “I believe that intersex people exist”.
If you can’t bring yourself to say the above, stop prattling pointlessly.
No, she does not believe intersex people exist. She does not believe people with DSD are intersex.
As "Differently Normal" blogger (linked on the previous page) has pointed out, not every person with DSD is "between sexes." She also points out that not every person with DSD identifies as "intersex." She identifies as a woman.
What "Differently Normal" and RunRagged disagree is whether sex is solely determined by gametes. If it is, "Differently Normal" is a man, which contradicts her own identity. People like her have always been recognized as women, primarily for two reasons, (1) they self-identify as women, and (2) they look feminine.
But that shows that "gender" is a social construct, rather than rigid material reality. How can a person born with Y chromosome and testes be considered a "woman"? Well, because our society operates more smoothly if we accept her as a woman. This is a position that gamete fundamentalists cannot accept. So they engage in "deny, deny and deny."
Here, this is easy to settle: just say the following and I’ll grant you this one: “I believe that intersex people exist”.
If you can’t bring yourself to say the above, stop prattling pointlessly.
No, she does not believe intersex people exist. She does not believe people with DSD are intersex.
How can a person born with Y chromosome and testes be considered a "woman"? Well, because our society operates more smoothly if we accept her as a woman. This is a position that gamete fundamentalists cannot accept. So they engage in "deny, deny and deny."
I like gamete supremacists to describe the likes of kilted and Verbosa for whom pointing out that their world seems to revolve around reproduction ruffles their feathers, but gamete supremacy perfectly unexaggeratedly captures their position.
There is also a fringe group of SRY gene supremacists around here, which makes me wonder how they hack the sacrosanct binary in the edge cases when an SRY supremacist’s view conflicts with that of a gamete supremacist.
No, she does not believe intersex people exist. She does not believe people with DSD are intersex.
How can a person born with Y chromosome and testes be considered a "woman"? Well, because our society operates more smoothly if we accept her as a woman. This is a position that gamete fundamentalists cannot accept. So they engage in "deny, deny and deny."
I like gamete supremacists to describe the likes of kilted and Verbosa for whom pointing out that their world seems to revolve around reproduction ruffles their feathers, but gamete supremacy perfectly unexaggeratedly captures their position.
There is also a fringe group of SRY gene supremacists around here, which makes me wonder how they hack the sacrosanct binary in the edge cases when an SRY supremacist’s view conflicts with that of a gamete supremacist.
The "world" doesn't revolve around reproduction. But the sex/gender debate as it pertains to sport does, considering that one sex's reproductive organs produce a hormone that is proven to enhance performance, particularly over time.
Aside from the fair competition debate, you do you I suppose. If it comforts you do use these labels (gamete supremacists) in other circles, then fine. But if you are using now, here, on LetsRun, to draw comparisons to other such supremacist labels - eg, white supremacists - in a debate about equity in sport, then the use of such label is just a cheap, senseless jab that fails to land.
Who cares what anyone thinks or feels? Everyone has a different truth. The only thing that matters is when people can band together and impose their truth on others. And, even then, it won't change the truth for the others, but it will subjagate them.
Who cares what anyone thinks or feels? Everyone has a different truth. The only thing that matters is when people can band together and impose their truth on others. And, even then, it won't change the truth for the others, but it will subjagate them.
The "world" doesn't revolve around reproduction. But the sex/gender debate as it pertains to sport does, considering that one sex's reproductive organs produce a hormone that is proven to enhance performance, particularly over time.
Sports performance revolves around the cumulative effect of hormonal level over time. It does not revolve around reproductive organs.
Hormonal level or its cumulative effect is irrelevant for gametes fundamentalists. That's why they want to exclude anyone born with testes from women's sports regardless of hormonal level or its cumulative effect.
I like gamete supremacists to describe the likes of kilted and Verbosa for whom pointing out that their world seems to revolve around reproduction ruffles their feathers, but gamete supremacy perfectly unexaggeratedly captures their position.
The "world" doesn't revolve around reproduction. But the sex/gender debate as it pertains to sport does, considering that one sex's reproductive organs produce a hormone that is proven to enhance performance, particularly over time.
Aside from the fair competition debate, you do you I suppose.
We can agree that planetary revolution is a hyperbole, but unlike you (seemingly), for many here, a little more of their world beyond fairness in sport (bathroom use, gender affirming care) is premised on the centrality of the gametes (or potential production ability thereof) with which one is born.
We can also agree that testicles typically produce both the male gamete as well as large amounts of testosterone that offers a significant performance advantage in sport. Gender affirmists (like many reasonable people as well as World Athletics) affirm the centrality of gender in determining participation category (or bathroom use) but recognize that some additional physiological measures need to be put in place in order to ensure fairness in elite sport. They may differ in their views on those fairness measures, but they all uniformly respect gender (i.e., are sensitive to, not dismissive of) unlike gamete supremacists that have no flexibility in their sole participation criterion.
It seems that the runner in Maine could be disqualified for being too fast.
Thanks for the link. I agree this runner could be considered having an "athletic advantage." But what is the process? Here is the actual policy. Transgender eligibility is on pages 19-21.
My first question is why was this student approved (assuming that is the case)?
The policy says once the student is approved, it is valid through the duration of the student's high school career. (Procedure 2 d.) However, they may approve for shorter duration if there is reasonably foreseeable that the athletic advantage may increase as the student matures.
So my second question is, was this student given approval for the entire duration of high school, or for a shorter period? If it is the latter, when is the first opportunity the approval can be not renewed? If it is the former, is there any way to change that without changing the policy itself?
My third question is, what is the procedure to change the policy itself if that's the only way to change this student's eligibility before graduation?
It seems irresponsible to give a student eligibility for the entire high school career without seeing how much athletic advantage the student has in actual competitions. (If that's what they did.) What were the basis for their decision?
The ESPN article is referencing an out-of-date Maine policy regarding HS athletics. The "competitive advantage" policy has been superseded by a revision to the Maine Human Rights Act which was passed by the legislature in August 2022 and signed into law by the Governor. It is now illegal to "deny a person equal opportunity in athletic programs" due to gender identity. So if a school or the Maine Principals' Association denied an athlete from competing with the gender they identify with, it would be a violation of that student's human rights and they would be breaking the law.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
The "world" doesn't revolve around reproduction. But the sex/gender debate as it pertains to sport does, considering that one sex's reproductive organs produce a hormone that is proven to enhance performance, particularly over time.
Aside from the fair competition debate, you do you I suppose.
We can agree that planetary revolution is a hyperbole, but unlike you (seemingly), for many here, a little more of their world beyond fairness in sport (bathroom use, gender affirming care) is premised on the centrality of the gametes (or potential production ability thereof) with which one is born.
We can also agree that testicles typically produce both the male gamete as well as large amounts of testosterone that offers a significant performance advantage in sport. Gender affirmists (like many reasonable people as well as World Athletics) affirm the centrality of gender in determining participation category (or bathroom use) but recognize that some additional physiological measures need to be put in place in order to ensure fairness in elite sport. They may differ in their views on those fairness measures, but they all uniformly respect gender (i.e., are sensitive to, not dismissive of) unlike gamete supremacists that have no flexibility in their sole participation criterion.
I don't effing care what bathroom anyone uses. This isn't LetsCrap.com. We care about sports - particularly running - fairness, and equity. Take a big fat dump next to me if you need to. I couldn't care less if you have a D, a V, both, or neither. But if you were born with testicles, you shouldn't be racing against those who weren't.
Thanks for the link. I agree this runner could be considered having an "athletic advantage." But what is the process? Here is the actual policy. Transgender eligibility is on pages 19-21.
My first question is why was this student approved (assuming that is the case)?
The policy says once the student is approved, it is valid through the duration of the student's high school career. (Procedure 2 d.) However, they may approve for shorter duration if there is reasonably foreseeable that the athletic advantage may increase as the student matures.
So my second question is, was this student given approval for the entire duration of high school, or for a shorter period? If it is the latter, when is the first opportunity the approval can be not renewed? If it is the former, is there any way to change that without changing the policy itself?
My third question is, what is the procedure to change the policy itself if that's the only way to change this student's eligibility before graduation?
It seems irresponsible to give a student eligibility for the entire high school career without seeing how much athletic advantage the student has in actual competitions. (If that's what they did.) What were the basis for their decision?
The ESPN article is referencing an out-of-date Maine policy regarding HS athletics. The "competitive advantage" policy has been superseded by a revision to the Maine Human Rights Act which was passed by the legislature in August 2022 and signed into law by the Governor. It is now illegal to "deny a person equal opportunity in athletic programs" due to gender identity. So if a school or the Maine Principals' Association denied an athlete from competing with the gender they identify with, it would be a violation of that student's human rights and they would be breaking the law.
Okay. Thanks for the update. Is there anything that can be done other than changing the Maine Human Rights Act?
I don't effing care what bathroom anyone uses. This isn't LetsCrap.com. We care about sports - particularly running - fairness, and equity. Take a big fat dump next to me if you need to. I couldn't care less if you have a D, a V, both, or neither. But if you were born with testicles, you shouldn't be racing against those who weren't.
We can agree that planetary revolution is a hyperbole, but unlike you (seemingly), for many here, a little more of their world beyond fairness in sport (bathroom use, gender affirming care) is premised on the centrality of the gametes (or potential production ability thereof) with which one is born.
We can also agree that testicles typically produce both the male gamete as well as large amounts of testosterone that offers a significant performance advantage in sport. Gender affirmists (like many reasonable people as well as World Athletics) affirm the centrality of gender in determining participation category (or bathroom use) but recognize that some additional physiological measures need to be put in place in order to ensure fairness in elite sport. They may differ in their views on those fairness measures, but they all uniformly respect gender (i.e., are sensitive to, not dismissive of) unlike gamete supremacists that have no flexibility in their sole participation criterion.
I don't effing care what bathroom anyone uses. This isn't LetsCrap.com. We care about sports - particularly running - fairness, andequity. Take a big fat dump next to me if you need to. I couldn't care less if you have a D, a V, both, or neither. But if you were born with testicles, you shouldn't be racing against those who weren't.
Ok, so you sound like a gamete supremacist on competitive sport but perhaps gender affirmist outside of competitive sport. On bathrooms, the gamete supremacists are usually concerned about testicles invading women’s bathrooms but not the other way round; gender affirmists don’t care either way.
I don't effing care what bathroom anyone uses. This isn't LetsCrap.com. We care about sports - particularly running - fairness, andequity. Take a big fat dump next to me if you need to. I couldn't care less if you have a D, a V, both, or neither. But if you were born with testicles, you shouldn't be racing against those who weren't.
Ok, so you sound like a gamete supremacist on competitive sport but perhaps gender affirmist outside of competitive sport. On bathrooms, the gamete supremacists are usually concerned about testicles invading women’s bathrooms but not the other way round; gender affirmists don’t care either way.
Does equity mean something other than fairness?
Why do labels matter so much to you? And why are you attempting to label me, or classify me according to how such labels "usually act"? Is this how you debate? Attack the person instead of the issue at hand?
The issue remains... inclusion of trans athletes in woman-only events is an attack on sports equity and fairness for biological women.
Last... to the above poster who mentioned that I have testes. I do, in fact, have testes. Does this mean I should be opinion-free? If you could provide a list of required anatomy to voice opinions on public matters I'd appreciate it. Do I need hands? Eyes? Just let me know.
Last... to the above poster who mentioned that I have testes. I do, in fact, have testes. Does this mean I should be opinion-free? If you could provide a list of required anatomy to voice opinions on public matters I'd appreciate it. Do I need hands? Eyes? Just let me know.
If you are referring to me, I didn't make any comment on your testes.
I pointed out that the person in that Lancet article was born with testes. Her body does not respond to androgen. So she didn't have any athletic advantage although she was born with testes. This has been a settled issue in the athletic world for decades, largely because people like her fought for their rights.
But many people on this board refuse to acknowledge the existence of people like Dr. Martinez Patino. Or they insist that she is a man and should have never been allowed to compete in women's races.
Ancillary to these issues is whether people with disorders of male sex development and males who claim an opposite-sex gender identity and might or might not have taken drugs to suppress their T levels should be considered female or male - or in their own category - in other areas of life and law where people's sex matters.
I’m willing to engage in debate about this, as I think it is enough related to the sports issue to explain why you hold the view you do.
Which “other areas of life and law where people’s sex matters” are you talking about here? And then could you say whether you see any instance where a person born male could be considered female or vice versa?
Bump.
I am curious about RR's answer to this question.
I am also waiting for her answer on whether she thinks "Differently Normal" blogger is a man.
