Democrats are “funny”
Democrats are “funny”
Why are people making this so complicated?
Just keep it 100% scientific and 100% simple (no emotion or feelings involved):
Just have 2 races:
1. The "Y" chromosome race (if you have a Y chromosome, this is your race).
2. The "No Y" chromosome race (if you don't have a Y, this is your race).
It's 100% scientific and not expensive - anyone can get a "23 and me" kit or ancestry kit and find out if they have a Y chromosome.
Isn't it better to go by whether I feel I have a Y chromosome or not?
The "Y" Race and the "No Y" Race wrote:
Why are people making this so complicated?
Just keep it 100% scientific and 100% simple (no emotion or feelings involved):
Just have 2 races:
1. The "Y" chromosome race (if you have a Y chromosome, this is your race).
2. The "No Y" chromosome race (if you don't have a Y, this is your race).
It's 100% scientific and not expensive - anyone can get a "23 and me" kit or ancestry kit and find out if they have a Y chromosome.
What do you do about ppl who have a mixture of cells?
It has been reported that genetic investigations revealed that she ("Stella the Fella") had a mixture of cells with either XY or XX chromosomes.
If the person has a Y (even a damaged/partial Y), then that person is in the Y race.
If a person has no Y whatsoever, then the "No Y" race
science people!
ddnbb wrote:
NeedQuantitativeInfo wrote:
What's the not insignificant percentage?
Approximately 1.7% of people are born intersex, making it approximately as common as being born with red hair.
https://www.intersexequality.com/how-common-is-intersex-in-humans/People who are born intersex are neither strictly male nor strictly female. Since over 98% of people are born either male or female, it's easy to see why people could think that everyone is born either female or male. But 1.7% is not an insignificant percentage of people, just as the number of people with red hair is small but not insignificant. (Being born intersex is different than being transgender; adding in people who are transgender increases the percentage above 1.7%.)
It's 1.7% in societies with lots of inbreeding, like African (see all their 800m runners) or Muslim societies. In white countries this number is way lower.
A person who has produced sperm (almost all men) should never be allowed to compete against women.
A question I have on all this would be: Regarding people who switch genders to compete in athletics, I wonder what the percentage breakdown would be each way? What percentage of women switch and compete in men's races? - if it's extremely low as compared to the reverse, I think that's telling us something...does anyone know?
This is Lyndsy Sharp, crying after an intersex stole her Olympic medal:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/athletics/tearful-lynsey-sharp-claims-difficult-8678992
Do we want to see the same at Western States?
This debate persistently founders on two unresolved and apparently contradictory principles. Men's and women's sports have been traditionally separated on biological lines. Competitors are either XY (male) or XX (female). Apart from any cultural factors involved, the rationale for this distinction has been the physical differences between the two sexes that typically give males a substantial advantage over women in competitive sports. It would be reasonable to say that if all competition was open and there was no category for female sports there would never be any female athletes on the podium. Indeed, in track no woman athlete would qualify for international competition according to the standards presently set for male athletes. This would apply to most sports at the elite level. So the separate category for female sports is intended to ensure fair competition for women, in much the same way there are age categories in many sports.
Against this we hear from some that gender is not necessarily a reflection of biology (although in most instances it is) but is determined by psychology: you are the gender you believe yourself to be. This isn't fanciful thinking by those who believe this; it is apparently a critical and thus genuinely held feature of their identity. It demeans them to say that this identification is delusional. It is merely to argue that gender is as psychologically determined as it is a reflection of biology, and in some instances they will not be the same. The proportion of the population that identifies with other than the gender defined by birth/chromosome is statistically small. But the issue becomes significant in competitive sports because of the undoubted physical advantage enjoyed by those in particular who were born male or who have distinctly male characteristics. To allow them to compete in women's categories essentially undermines the whole rationale for having women's sports as a separate category, in which male biological or physical characteristics give unfair advantage because most women, biologically, cannot acquire those advantages through any natural means.
The issue then becomes essentially this: how to respect the genuinely held psychological definition of gender when it is not a reflection of an individual's biology, and how to preserve the requirement of fairness that underlies all competitive sport, which has previously determined that male and female categories are necessarily a reflection of their biological differences. Sports have yet to find an answer that will resolve the question so that neither principle is sacrificed to the other.
Armstronglivs wrote:
This debate persistently founders on two unresolved and apparently contradictory principles. Men's and women's sports have been traditionally separated on biological lines. Competitors are either XY (male) or XX (female). Apart from any cultural factors involved, the rationale for this distinction has been the physical differences between the two sexes that typically give males a substantial advantage over women in competitive sports. It would be reasonable to say that if all competition was open and there was no category for female sports there would never be any female athletes on the podium. Indeed, in track no woman athlete would qualify for international competition according to the standards presently set for male athletes. This would apply to most sports at the elite level. So the separate category for female sports is intended to ensure fair competition for women, in much the same way there are age categories in many sports.
Against this we hear from some that gender is not necessarily a reflection of biology (although in most instances it is) but is determined by psychology: you are the gender you believe yourself to be. This isn't fanciful thinking by those who believe this; it is apparently a critical and thus genuinely held feature of their identity. It demeans them to say that this identification is delusional. It is merely to argue that gender is as psychologically determined as it is a reflection of biology, and in some instances they will not be the same. The proportion of the population that identifies with other than the gender defined by birth/chromosome is statistically small. But the issue becomes significant in competitive sports because of the undoubted physical advantage enjoyed by those in particular who were born male or who have distinctly male characteristics. To allow them to compete in women's categories essentially undermines the whole rationale for having women's sports as a separate category, in which male biological or physical characteristics give unfair advantage because most women, biologically, cannot acquire those advantages through any natural means.
The issue then becomes essentially this: how to respect the genuinely held psychological definition of gender when it is not a reflection of an individual's biology, and how to preserve the requirement of fairness that underlies all competitive sport, which has previously determined that male and female categories are necessarily a reflection of their biological differences. Sports have yet to find an answer that will resolve the question so that neither principle is sacrificed to the other.
Good summary of the basics.
But don't forget that intersex athletes are a significant issue at the world level. Although they are different than transgender athletes, they call into question the exact same issues, of sex categories versus gender categories, and sex fairness in competition versus openness to gender identity.
Oh boo-hoo, pasty white girl with faked blonde hair cries a river because she can't keep up with Semenya.
The trans-haters have nothing else, so they turn to their virtue signalling identity politics of division.
BLtheKid wrote:
A question I have on all this would be: Regarding people who switch genders to compete in athletics, I wonder what the percentage breakdown would be each way? What percentage of women switch and compete in men's races? - if it's extremely low as compared to the reverse, I think that's telling us something...does anyone know?
"Transmen" in men's sports is pretty much unheard of. The reason is obvious: they are women.
Some genetics are better than others wrote:
Oh boo-hoo, pasty white girl with faked blonde hair cries a river because she can't keep up with Semenya.
The trans-haters have nothing else, so they turn to their virtue signalling identity politics of division.
Talking of politics of division - that's all you have.
Why the racist comment? If Semenya was white and she was black, would you say poor black girl with an afro about the loser who had to compete against a person who isn't completely female?
Hopefully, forward-going intersectionality will overthrow the patriarchal (white supremacist) current definition of "completely female" (whatever that means), and improve our societal thinking on the matter.
Some genetics are better than others wrote:
Oh boo-hoo, pasty white girl with faked blonde hair cries a river because she can't keep up with Semenya.
The trans-haters have nothing else, so they turn to their virtue signalling identity politics of division.
The trans-lovers never mention the huge suicide numbers of transgenders, to hide the fact that it's a mental illness after all.
It's a spectrum wrote:
Hopefully, forward-going intersectionality will overthrow the patriarchal (white supremacist) current definition of "completely female" (whatever that means), and improve our societal thinking on the matter.
Our thinking isn't going to be improved by jargon of the kind you spout. "Intersectionality" - a shallow reductionist formula to fit every kind of argument. Except the truth.
rojo wrote:
Fantastic point. You basically want to be smaller for running. But for the WNBA it would be awful. I mean17% of US men who are 7 feet tall make the NBA, I imagine it would be close to 100% for the WNBA.
While you are focused on size of a person, what you are forgetting is that an athlete who is transitioned has less testosterone than a post-menopausal woman (ie. typically 51yo+)
This obviously radically reduces strength, even more so than endurance.
Not only would pro or semi-professional sports be incredibly unlikely (not going to say impossible but it would lean that way) but it also brings up an answer to the other hyped question in this thread - you are never going to find runners who are completely transitioned winning sprints against elite/sub-elite women, now that's impossible.
Again, don't confuse this with unregulated high school sports where they aren't actually transitioned, they are simply "in name only". And pretty sure you understand that intersex is completely different but many other posters in this thread don't seem to get that, or don't want to.
By the way, this is why the rule has to be two years and not just one year. Muscle mass has not completely transitioned after just one year.
zczxcz wrote:
"Transmen" in men's sports is pretty much unheard of. The reason is obvious: they are women.
Actually, men who transitioned are the only successful transitioned athletes because they are perhaps the only athletes in existance who have a TUE for testosterone.
Chris Mosier for example made TeamUSA for triathlon.
http://www.espn.com/espn/photos/gallery/_/id/16591832/image/1/chris-mosier-scenes