If it did that, then why does Khelif have the muscles and all the testosterone and masculine effects
-
20
-
muckle wrote:
icrlp05 wrote:
how do you define a man?
You can’t be asking me that out of genuine curiosity, but the answer is easy: anyone who consistently identifies as such.
The “as such” technically makes it a recursive definition, but it’s still simple enough for Everyman to understand its spirit. The qualifier “consistently” does not mean cis but exists to distinguish them from nonbinaries.
To add, WA agrees with this definition and does not distinguish between the terms man and male or woman and female. They have eligibility restrictions for the female category based on performance-determinative attributes for preserving fairness of competitive advantage.
44 -
muckle wrote:
change the categories wrote:
Instead of having men's and women's categories we should have "people with working testicles" and "people without them" categories. This would put Semenya and all the other DSD athletes in the right category.
Semenya is already in the right category. That was never the problematic issue for either party in all the litigation in her running career.
Why do you think people were so outraged? A person with testicles producing T and racing in the women's category is fair to you?
Were you a runner during those years? I worked closely with an athlete who was giving 100% to break 2 minutes in the 800m. She was totally demoralized by the way Caster could just float to a 1:55 like it was a jog.
You don't think that policy hurts all the non-DSD women in the world? It did, which is why WA has worked so hard to correct course.
121 -
Blue Lives Splatter wrote:
This is basically the gender version of the racist “one-drop” rule in America. She doesn’t fit the reactionary fantasy of what a woman is supposed to be, and nuance is out of the question, so therefore they must be a dude.
But it isn't like that. Caster was "just one in a million" and yet won like every race for two Olympic cycles.
We are no longer going to fall for the "oh, it is really rare so who cares about a handful of people" argument. If you let me pick me five boys off my daughter's track team, I could get three of them onto the women's Olympic 800m team. That is the power of T. So yes, it is only five or ten athletes at the highest level, but those 5-10 athletes are dominating!
So if we are being fair, it isn't about "only a few people" anymore. It is about fairness for all girls/women. But feel free to tell yourself that allowing DSD women to compete as females will make the world better for women. If you think that is true, you aren't looking at the same world as the rest of us.
121 -
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
A man is a person who identifies as a man and truly believes he is a man. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman and truly believes she is a woman.
So in boxing competitions, this is the criteria we should use?
Now that you solved that one, what about the issue of brain damage for cis-women/female athletes in contact sports? How will you "define" their brain damage?
p.s. I am still staunchly supportive of DSD people and trans-people living their lives with as little stress or antagonism as possible. I believe people should be allowed to act/live however they want.
But you can't show up at a Masters track meet and race if you are 25 years old. And you can't enter a "women's" race if you have functioning testes and/or male levels of T. That is not me being a bigot, is it?
We restrict people's "freedoms and rights" all the time in order to create a fairer and better society. That is part of living with other people in a civilization. It is the compromise we make to live with other people who are different from us.
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.120 -
icrlp05 wrote:
muckle wrote:
Speak for yourself: I neither identify as left nor struggle to define a man. Neither does World Athletics that doesn’t allow athletes to simply “choose”. IBA has other problems going on.
how do you define a man?
For the purpose of athletic competitions?
"A person who can utilize elevated level of endogenous testosterone to benefit athletic performance."
So you are not a man if you never had functioning testes. (Swyer syndrome.)
You are not a man if you cannot use elevated testosterone level for athletic advantage. (CAIS)
You are not a man if you stopped testes from producing adult male level testosterone. (A trans woman who started medical transition before puberty.)
This is basically the conclusion that World Aquatics (FINA) came to two years ago.
That's just for the purpose for athletic classification. There could be other definitions for other purposes, like public bathroom use.
43 -
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
change the categories wrote:
Instead of having men's and women's categories we should have "people with working testicles" and "people without them" categories. This would put Semenya and all the other DSD athletes in the right category.
And what about the thousands upon thousands of women who underwent surgery to remove their testicles? Are you agreeing that they should compete with women?
That's a legitimate question. Wouldn't it depend on when they had them removed? At age 5, then sure. At age 20, they've already benefited from 20 years of T, so probably not. Imane Khelif is 25 years old, so no Khelif should not compete against women.
20 -
Ruxton Towers XC wrote:
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
A man is a person who identifies as a man and truly believes he is a man. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman and truly believes she is a woman.
So in boxing competitions, this is the criteria we should use?
Now that you solved that one, what about the issue of brain damage for cis-women/female athletes in contact sports? How will you "define" their brain damage?
p.s. I am still staunchly supportive of DSD people and trans-people living their lives with as little stress or antagonism as possible. I believe people should be allowed to act/live however they want.
But you can't show up at a Masters track meet and race if you are 25 years old. And you can't enter a "women's" race if you have functioning testes and/or male levels of T. That is not me being a bigot, is it?
We restrict people's "freedoms and rights" all the time in order to create a fairer and better society. That is part of living with other people in a civilization. It is the compromise we make to live with other people who are different from us.
Oh absolutely. That is always the criteria we should use for gender. Age is linear. Gender is not. But now I pose a question to you. For those trans athletes we have heard about, do they release their medical records? (honest question, I have no idea) I would guess they wouldn't. Without knowing their medical records, why do people always assume that their testicles are functioning? How do we know they have "male levels of T"? Your belief is not what makes you a bigot. But applying your beliefs to those without knowing if your conditions actually apply does. I have another question. What sacrifices have you made to live with people who are different from you (trans people)? Because the way I see it, you want trans to always get the short end of the stick.
09 -
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
icrlp05 wrote:
how do you define a man?
I will give the same answer that anyone with any form of complex understanding of gender would give. A man is a person who identifies as a man and truly believes he is a man. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman and truly believes she is a woman. For example, you. You are either a man or a woman or gender expansive (anyone who does not conform to the gender binary). Why? Because you say you are and you believe you are. It's as simple as that.
The argument that being a man or woman is decided on chromosomes or genitals cannot possibly work. Yes, it makes up the vast majority of people. However using these classical definitions completely isolates anyone with any conditions that make it ambiguous. In every transgender related thread I have seen, those who opposes trans always say "It's just a case by case basis" or "There's so few of them it doesn't matter." It seems to me that they are saying you don't have a gender because you don't fit the biological gender most people fit, or there are so few of you that you do not matter and it isn't a good idea to make you equal because there are so few of you. As mentioned, there are people who lose their Y chromosomes. There are people who are not as receptive to testosterone. There are people born with ambiguous genitalia. There are many other conditions that would cause someone to not align with a single gender on the basis of genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones.
Even if we ignore the issue of trans and gender expansive people, this is a big problem within our society. You are doing these people a massive injustice. Even if it is true that very few people like this would want to compete in sports, what do you do when one does? Do we say "You cannot compete as anything because you do not conform to our standards of male or female?" I should hope not.
They can compete in the mens category. They probably won’t be exceptional in that category but most people aren’t.
84 -
technically the truth wrote:
Blowing Rock Master wrote:
The "nuance" is that women have XX chromosomes and anyone with a Y is a biological male and shouldn't be boxing in the women's division.
Y Chromosome is literally just an X Chromosome with some pieces missing.
And because of that there are a massive number of variations of types of Y
AND some "men" lose their Y Chromosome entirely as they age
Are they now women by your definition?
If you go around insisting the world is just black and white, A or B, with nothing in-between well life is going to really wake you up someday, absolutely nothing is like that, nothing.
Irrelevant. The question here is which of two existing categories does Khelif fit in? Clearly, for sporting purposes, biology is more relevant than how someone was raised or what their passport says, and having testicles and a corresponding level of T, and the ability to respond to it, should put someone in the male category.
62 -
OFOOS wrote:
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
And what about the thousands upon thousands of women who underwent surgery to remove their testicles? Are you agreeing that they should compete with women?
That's a legitimate question. Wouldn't it depend on when they had them removed? At age 5, then sure. At age 20, they've already benefited from 20 years of T, so probably not. Imane Khelif is 25 years old, so no Khelif should not compete against women.
Then it brings up another question. How tf do you and other people know if they did so let alone when they did so? How do you know if they have been on E to balance out their T (or how long they have)? Why assume the worst just because of a few extraordinarily rare cases of top level athletes having a large advantage?
06 -
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
icrlp05 wrote:
how do you define a man?
I will give the same answer that anyone with any form of complex understanding of gender would give. A man is a person who identifies as a man and truly believes he is a man. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman and truly believes she is a woman. For example, you. You are either a man or a woman or gender expansive (anyone who does not conform to the gender binary). Why? Because you say you are and you believe you are. It's as simple as that.
The argument that being a man or woman is decided on chromosomes or genitals cannot possibly work. Yes, it makes up the vast majority of people. However using these classical definitions completely isolates anyone with any conditions that make it ambiguous. In every transgender related thread I have seen, those who opposes trans always say "It's just a case by case basis" or "There's so few of them it doesn't matter." It seems to me that they are saying you don't have a gender because you don't fit the biological gender most people fit, or there are so few of you that you do not matter and it isn't a good idea to make you equal because there are so few of you. As mentioned, there are people who lose their Y chromosomes. There are people who are not as receptive to testosterone. There are people born with ambiguous genitalia. There are many other conditions that would cause someone to not align with a single gender on the basis of genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones.
Even if we ignore the issue of trans and gender expansive people, this is a big problem within our society. You are doing these people a massive injustice. Even if it is true that very few people like this would want to compete in sports, what do you do when one does? Do we say "You cannot compete as anything because you do not conform to our standards of male or female?" I should hope not.
Your definition of man is completely irrelevant to athletic competition. Then men's world records are not stronger/faster/higher because of how they identify. And most of these disputed cases should be perfectly free to compete, in the men's division. Nobody outside of a bunch of Republicans in Texas (see Mack Beggs) would be against this.
81 -
MD here, not a transphobe wrote:
muckle wrote:
[...] there are some physiological attributes on the basis of which we filter and others on which we don’t in sport. Long feet and torso offer a much more direct advantage compared to karyotype, your favorite filtering attribute, that correlate with a population-level statistical advantage.
Great post.
All of these twits saying 'but but but XY! testicles! XY!' seem to have no idea that a person can have an XY karyotype, and testicles, and complete feminization (possible due to a number of causes).
This includes but is not limited to 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which essentially prevents the 'male' effects of testosterone, with many patients being 'female' by any rational assessment, including that of their parents, doctors, and eventually their male sexual partners.
Yes, but Khelif clearly does not one of these conditions.
30 -
Ruxton Towers XC wrote:
muckle wrote:
Semenya is already in the right category. That was never the problematic issue for either party in all the litigation in her running career.
Why do you think people were so outraged? A person with testicles producing T and racing in the women's category is fair to you?
Were you a runner during those years? I worked closely with an athlete who was giving 100% to break 2 minutes in the 800m. She was totally demoralized by the way Caster could just float to a 1:55 like it was a jog.
You don't think that policy hurts all the non-DSD women in the world? It did, which is why WA has worked so hard to correct course.
“People” typically tend be stupid, so I don’t care about their outrage.
Fairness is not meaningfully definable for an individual, only for nontrivially sized groups defined by constraints on group characteristics. I have articulated my empirically quantifiable definition (not some 0-1 binary religious position) of fairness many times on these boards if you are genuinely curious. As for your specific question, a person producing T with testicles and racing with women can of course well be consistent with might as well as any reasonable person’s definition of fairness, eg if she has CAIS.
Sorry, I can’t care about anecdotal demoralization of some girl, just like I can’t care about the many boys and grown men demoralized by Bolt.
WA’s previous DSD policy did not hurt *all* non-DSD women, far from it. It materially impacted a tiny fraction of cis women who could have medaled in 2016 but didn’t because of DSD medalists. That fraction for all practical purposes is 0. Most women actually had no idea that you guys over here were so outraged. If you are talking about some indirect emotional hurt impact on all cis girls out there, you need a metric to compare it against the collective hurt impact of exclusion on all DSD girls out there.
08 -
OFOOS wrote:
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
I will give the same answer that anyone with any form of complex understanding of gender would give. A man is a person who identifies as a man and truly believes he is a man. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman and truly believes she is a woman. For example, you. You are either a man or a woman or gender expansive (anyone who does not conform to the gender binary). Why? Because you say you are and you believe you are. It's as simple as that.
The argument that being a man or woman is decided on chromosomes or genitals cannot possibly work. Yes, it makes up the vast majority of people. However using these classical definitions completely isolates anyone with any conditions that make it ambiguous. In every transgender related thread I have seen, those who opposes trans always say "It's just a case by case basis" or "There's so few of them it doesn't matter." It seems to me that they are saying you don't have a gender because you don't fit the biological gender most people fit, or there are so few of you that you do not matter and it isn't a good idea to make you equal because there are so few of you. As mentioned, there are people who lose their Y chromosomes. There are people who are not as receptive to testosterone. There are people born with ambiguous genitalia. There are many other conditions that would cause someone to not align with a single gender on the basis of genitalia, chromosomes, and hormones.
Even if we ignore the issue of trans and gender expansive people, this is a big problem within our society. You are doing these people a massive injustice. Even if it is true that very few people like this would want to compete in sports, what do you do when one does? Do we say "You cannot compete as anything because you do not conform to our standards of male or female?" I should hope not.
Your definition of man is completely irrelevant to athletic competition. Then men's world records are not stronger/faster/higher because of how they identify. And most of these disputed cases should be perfectly free to compete, in the men's division. Nobody outside of a bunch of Republicans in Texas (see Mack Beggs) would be against this.
I was not asked in regards to athletics. I was asked "How do I define a man?" I answered honestly
13 -
3a1n4o1n5y9m2o6u5s3 wrote:
Ruxton Towers XC wrote:
So in boxing competitions, this is the criteria we should use?
Now that you solved that one, what about the issue of brain damage for cis-women/female athletes in contact sports? How will you "define" their brain damage?
p.s. I am still staunchly supportive of DSD people and trans-people living their lives with as little stress or antagonism as possible. I believe people should be allowed to act/live however they want.
But you can't show up at a Masters track meet and race if you are 25 years old. And you can't enter a "women's" race if you have functioning testes and/or male levels of T. That is not me being a bigot, is it?
We restrict people's "freedoms and rights" all the time in order to create a fairer and better society. That is part of living with other people in a civilization. It is the compromise we make to live with other people who are different from us.
Oh absolutely. That is always the criteria we should use for gender. Age is linear. Gender is not. But now I pose a question to you. For those trans athletes we have heard about, do they release their medical records? (honest question, I have no idea) I would guess they wouldn't. Without knowing their medical records, why do people always assume that their testicles are functioning? How do we know they have "male levels of T"? Your belief is not what makes you a bigot. But applying your beliefs to those without knowing if your conditions actually apply does. I have another question. What sacrifices have you made to live with people who are different from you (trans people)? Because the way I see it, you want trans to always get the short end of the stick.
This is not a criminal trail. We don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The preponderance of evidence suggests Khelif has functioning testicles and a body that responds to testosterone. If Khelif wants to compete as female despite this evidence, then he or she should release their medical records.
40 -
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
icrlp05 wrote:
how do you define a man?
For the purpose of athletic competitions?
"A person who can utilize elevated level of endogenous testosterone to benefit athletic performance."
So you are not a man if you never had functioning testes. (Swyer syndrome.)
You are not a man if you cannot use elevated testosterone level for athletic advantage. (CAIS)
You are not a man if you stopped testes from producing adult male level testosterone. (A trans woman who started medical transition before puberty.)
This is basically the conclusion that World Aquatics (FINA) came to two years ago.
That's just for the purpose for athletic classification. There could be other definitions for other purposes, like public bathroom use.
This may seem like semantics to those who are only cursorily attentive, but there is nothing to be gained by denying someone’s male or female self-identification. WA defers to self identification for categorization purposes but maintains fairness of competitive advantage by defining “eligibility constraints” instead for the female category. This distinction is very deliberate in the wording of its documents.
Defining eligibility constraints makes it clear that it is performance-determinative like weight categories for boxing or weight training, not about identity. Self identification also obviates different definitions for bathroom use or other contexts.
03 -
muckle wrote:
icrlp05 wrote:
how do you define a man?
You can’t be asking me that out of genuine curiosity, but the answer is easy: anyone who consistently identifies as such.
The “as such” technically makes it a recursive definition, but it’s still simple enough for Everyman to understand its spirit. The qualifier “consistently” does not mean cis but exists to distinguish them from nonbinaries.
what sporting categories would you have?
20 -
OFOOS wrote:
MD here, not a transphobe wrote:
Great post.
All of these twits saying 'but but but XY! testicles! XY!' seem to have no idea that a person can have an XY karyotype, and testicles, and complete feminization (possible due to a number of causes).
This includes but is not limited to 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which essentially prevents the 'male' effects of testosterone, with many patients being 'female' by any rational assessment, including that of their parents, doctors, and eventually their male sexual partners.
Yes, but Khelif clearly does not one of these conditions.
The entire premise of this thread is the rumor (or possibly fact) that she is 5ARD.
02 -
Taoufik Katir wrote:
Who would have seen this! Next you’re going to tel me that Sedjati is a doper!
My boy Sedjati is clean! Leave him alone!
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.