Veronica Ivy on The Daily Show on natural testosterone level having no competitive advantage

Ahhh, ok, I think I see where you're going and why you referenced why the non inclusion folks can't have their cake and eat it too (exclusion based on performance attributes as long as it only goes one way). Thanks for the explanation and I think you've weathered the storm enough to bring up a valid point.

Not necessarily a point I agree with but a valid point nonetheless.

Maybe a better way to think of it is not based on the parts, ovaries, testosterone, chromosomes, but rather, on the sum of its parts. Why is a cis woman built the way they are? To bear children, #1 and to always be right #2. As to #1, essentially the reason their bones are less dense and ligaments more pliable. Add in all the reproductive infrastructure required to bring a human to term, birth and nurture it to independence and you have a world class mother. For a biological female who aspires to be an athlete first and maybe, if ever, a mother later, that reproductive infrastructure comes at a heavy cost when it comes to most athletic performances. For females, biology doesn't place as high a value on whether they can provide and protect as much as it does for biological males (stronger physical attributes that definitely enhance performance at most but not all sports).

Trans woman, regardless of their physical attributes, i.e., narrow shoulders, body fat, height/weight, in relation to a physically gifted cis woman, are not encumbered with the reproductive infrastructure that women have. Not only are they not encumbered with a womb, but they've had the benefit of puberty that bestowed them with a more physical, protect and provide body.

So if we draw the line at your example, ovaries, we are not merely picking out an attribute that may or may not be predictive on performance but, we are defining what it is to be a woman when it comes to sporting competition. So the mere presence of ovaries requires the sum of its parts rather than argue, or prove beyond a doubt, that ovaries, in and of themselves, enhances or diminishes, performance. Forest for the trees type of thing.

As to #2, let's just say that it's usually not a fair fight if you can activate both sides of your brain at the same time to problem solve.

Disclaimer: My biological representation of women in no way means that I believe that a woman's highest and best use is to birth babies, nor do I believe that every woman is similar in their body type, aspirations, abilities, [insert other perceived indignities here]. Nor am I in doubt that, when it comes to living your best life, a human can be non binary. I am merely trying to find a lowest common denominator for ensuring the integrity of the women's sporting divisions. Which is why I really like the FINA ruling; sort of meets Testy and myself half way. To the trans community, I am a big fan of sport and a big fan of personal freedoms. I can think of no better way to ensure the inclusion of the LGBTQ community than through sports. We just need to pave a path forward that doesn't take away fairness and established rights of others.

So males won't have an unfair advantage competing against women? That has to be the most stupid post in the entire thread - and you've authored a few.

And there we have it folks, Testy signs into his registered account so he can agree with himself.

There is no contradiction between Chand decision and Semenya decision. CAS said IAAF could not prevent Chand from competing because IAAF did not have enough evidence to prove that Chand's medical condition would give her significant advantage. We would suspend this rule and give you two years to gather data to prove your case.

IAAF presented the data that higher testosterone level gives significant advantage in some events, but not in others. CAS said fine, we would let you apply the rule to those events only.

Chand's eligibility in 100m and 200m did not change after the second decision, although she lost her eligibility in 400m and 4x4 relay. In the meantime, CAS never got into the question of whether Chand was a woman or not. (And IAAF never claimed she was not a woman.)

The precedent CAS set in BOTH decisions is that a sports federation needs specific evidence to prove that denying eligibility to some athletes is necessary.

And if Mboma runs "too fast" in Budapest next year or Paris in 2024, Chand will not be eligible in 200m. Of course, this has nothing to do with whatever Chand does. But if Mboma is not eligible in 200m, neither is Chand. (I don't know how fast is too fast, but Semenya never broke the WR, so probably it won't take that.)

I don't know what Ross Tucker said. But he is not a lawyer. So I don't think he was talking about legal precedence.

By "women with high natural t-level" I was referring to those with PCOS. They don't have any advantage in athletic competitions. So the fact that they have high t-level cannot be used as evidence that higher t-level does not give transwomen advantage over cis women. But the same argument can be made about people with AIS. Unless a transwoman also had androgen insensitivity, the fact that some people with AIS are eligible in women's competition is irrelevant.

And I also think men with low testosterone level is irrelevant in this discussion. The question is whether people with higher t-level than in the normal women's range have advantage over those women (with normal range). It is not whether some people with t-level lower than normal male range can compete with men.

"The question is whether people with higher t-level than in the normal women's range have advantage over those women (with normal range). It is not whether some people with t-level lower than normal male range can compete with men."(quote)

"People" with higher t-levels than in the normal women's range are almost all male. They have all the advantages that being male has. Women with higher than normal female t-levels don't have those advantages.

Agree with both of the above and didn’t say anything to the contrary.

This is correct and important. IAAF does a lot of gymnastics in its rulebook to never touch the question of whether someone is a woman — the simp-favorite argument — or anything that denies a legal woman her gender identity, rather they go to great lengths to present the criteria as not being for “sex verification” but rather being eligibility criteria. The philosophical distinction is critical even if the end decision resembles a sex-based one in some ways.

So anyone whose fundamental argument is based on sex-based eligibility is fundamentally at odds with the way IAAF and CAS views the issue.

To be crystal clear: The reference range WA uses, and most in medicine use, says the normal level for T in females age 18 and up without a health condition is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. WA says the normal range for T in males age 18 and up is 7.7-29.4 nmol/L.

Females who have natural endogenous T above the upper limit of the normal female range all have one of the following health conditions: PCOS, CAH, pregnancy or T-secreting endocrine tumors due to life threatening cancer. When a female person's T is tested and is found to be above the normal female range, the first step is always for her to take a pregnancy test. If she is found not to be pregnant, then she needs to be medically evaluated for the other conditions I named - or if she's an athlete, for doping violations.

Women with PCOS generally have T levels under 4 nmol/L. But every once in a while, a woman with PCOS will have a spike in her T so that for a time her T will near or reach the bottom of the normal male range. In the court proceedings in the Semenya case, medical experts said that this happens to one out of every 20,000 to 30,000 women with PCOS.

However, even when a woman has PCOS, if her T level reaches 5 nmol/L she needs urgent medical evaluation. Because T that high in any woman is usually the sign of cancer.

Since PCOS is a fairly common condition in the female population, affecting an estimate 6 to 16% of of us, many believe that women with PCOS should be counted in with other women when calculating the normal range of T in adult females. When women with PCOS are included along with women who don't have PCOS, the normal range for T is 0.05-2.4 nmol/L.

Women with PCOS tend to have a host of health problems associated or caused by the condition such as a tendency towards obesity and type-2 diabetes. So it's not just the case that women with PCOS don't have any of the advantages in sports that males have, like you say. Though there are exceptions to this general rule, the general rule is nonetheless that women with PCOS are at a disadvantage in most sports compared to most women without PCOS.

When women have T elevated above the normal female range, the single most common cause is pregnancy. The normal T range for pregnant women is 1.7-4.2 nmol/L.

During pregnancy, women's elevated T often leads to a couple of "androgenizing effects" such as acne, hairs growing on the face and nipples, and increased horniness especially in the later stages of pregnancy. But from my observation and experience, the elevated T all women have during pregnancy does not lead women to build skeletal muscle and increase our lean muscle mass - nor does it make it easier for us to hold on to the muscle we built prior to pregnancy.

Although many women remain physically fit and continue engaging in exercise during pregnancy, there are some sports activities most women can't do well when pregnant, particularly in the later stages, and other sports that we need to avoid altogether when pregnant. Generally speaking, women do not perform at our best in athletics competition when we are pregnant.

Does not meet explicit discussion guidelines provided. Subject seems to lack commonsensical natural language interpretation ability and ability to control impulse to launch into grade school knowledge mongering substantively irrelevant to issues.

You keep going back to the “sky is blue”argument of the ~10% performance difference between elite cis men and women that is universally acknowledged. We don’t disagree on that. So you might as well not keep saying that to make whatever point you are trying to make.

It is my faith that the sky is green

Pompous tw*t.

Huh? The CAS decision in the Semenya case says that when 46, XY DSD athletes at issue - whom you would describe as "testicular" - seek eligibility in women's competition, the deciding criteria are neither their gender identities nor their legal sex stated on documents such as passports and BCs.

In its decision in the Semenya case, the CAS acknowledged in numerous places that entirely apart from the issue of those rare individuals who were born with genital anomalies that might raise questions about their sex, many people with no genital anomalies whose sex development has been totally normal nevertheless have gender identities inconsistent with their biological sex.

The CAS also noted in Semenya that it's become common for people to obtain identity documents stating a sex or gender that does not reflect their biological sex even when their biological sex is clear. (For example, a lot of transmen who've had babies and transwomen who've fathered children have passports, driver's licenses and birth certificates that say they are the opposite sex, meaning the docs of many female trans persons say M or Male and the docs of the male trans persons say F or Female.)

Moreover, in the Semenya decision the CAS noted that an increasing number of people today have gender identities that are "fluid." Amongst the segment of the population who have gender identities, it's become common for individuals to change their gender identities over the course of their lives - and in some cases from day to day, or even hour to hour, as well as situationally. Thus, as the CAS observed in the Semenya case, a person's stated gender identity cannot be considered a reliable, stable indicator even of their own inner sense of themselves.

Also, as the 2015 IOC regulations pertaining to trans athletes noted in writing, some XY athletes without DSDs whom you would describe as "testicular" have a female gender identity "for sporting purposes," but a male gender identity in some, most or all contexts outside of sports.

In the Semenya decision, the CAS further accepted as true evidence that globally, the majority of persons with the specific 46,XY DSDs covered by the IAAF/WA's current DSD regulations who were thought to be "female at birth" based on the outward appearance of their genitals in early infancy end up changing their gender identities to male during or after puberty of adolescence.

For all these reasons, the CAS in the Semenya case concurred with the position of the IAAF that the gender identities and legal sex of 46,XY DSD athletes seeking eligibility in women's athletics events are of secondary importance.

Rather, the CAS found that what matters most is whether the XY DSD athletes with the specific DSDs covered by the IAAF regulations who choose to remain as you would say "testicular" have an unfair physical advantage over XX female athletes who have never been "testicular."

The CAS decided that as a matter of general principle, "testicular" XY DSD athletes with the kinds of XY DSDs that Chand and Semenya have do have an unfair advantage just like other XY "testicular" athletes do - and not just because of their current levels of T, but because of their previous levels of T during their growth and development over the course of their lives.

But paradoxically, the CAS decided to allow the IAAF/WA only to impose the testosterone restrictions in middle-distance events. This was ostensibly because the CAS panel decided it was in those events that the IAAF was able to provide the most solid evidence proving and quantifying the extent of the advantage.

We have had 8 pages saying that the definition of what is male or female is just a matter of opinion, and will depend on your point of view. This will come as something of a surprise to a great number of people. Like, most.

Along with this inventive take it is added that there are no "objective markers" for establishing a general sporting performance-superiority by males over females. I'm sure there will be highly-trained elite female athletes who can run faster than fat sedentary males. So let's then argue that the testosterone levels the fat males have shows that their testosterone doesn't offer them a competitive advantage. Unfortunately for that argument, every male who beats the best females (even though we no longer know what those gender terms exactly mean) will have testosterone levels that no female can have - unless "she" has testicles. So male testosterone levels are a necessary condition for male athletic superiority (although not a sufficient condition - which is not and never was the argument, as sporting success isn't determined solely by that marker). But testosterone seems to go hand in hand with every other feature that ensures males will have an advantage over females.

One way or the other, whatever "markers" we choose - whether it is testosterone or testicles - the guys will win - even when they call themselves "girls" and are only fairly average for a male .

Adding to my post above about the CAS's paradoxical decision in the Semenya case:

The underlying, unstated reason for the CAS's seemingly-contradictory decision in the Semenya case appears to be a longstanding belief amongst sports policy makers, sports law experts and jurists is that when it comes to XY DSD athletes like Chand and Semenya, it's better to err on the side of caution out of kindness and respect for XY DSD athletes.

Ever since the Maria Jose Patino Martinez case in the late 1980s, the IAAF and other male-run sports governing bodies including the IOC - and the CAS - have bent over backwards not to make the lives of XY DSD athletes any more difficult than they've already been. For good and admirable reason, they've not wanted to be in any way unfair to a group of people who constitute a teeny-tiny minority of the world's population and who historically have been horribly mistreated simply because they were born with physical conditions that set them apart from the norm.

In recent years, mostly male sports policy-makers have extended the same kinds of sympathy and respect they've shown to XY DSD athletes like Martinez Patino, Chand and Semenya to another group who used to be very small in number: adult males who wish they were female. Seeing transwomen as another teeny- tiny minority group who've historically often been treated unkindly and sometimes unfairly, especially by other males, policy-makers as well as many others eagerly adopted the position summed up by Joe Biden when in 2012 he began publicly saying, "trans rights are the civil rights issue of our time." Reflecting this view, sports policy makes decided to take a super-accommodating and placating stance to males like Joanna Harper, Veronica Ivy, Laurel Hubbard, CeCe Telfer, Lia Thomas et al by deciding in recent years to put in place rules that made it very easy for a large number of males who say they "identify as" women to start muscling in on women's sports.

Unfortunately, the solicitous stance that sports policy-makers have adopted regarding XY DSD athletes and normally-developed male athletes with opposite-sex gender identities has caused them to come up with policies and practices that have been blatantly unfair to female athletes. Those proclaiming that "trans rights are the civil rights issue of our time" didn't notice - or didn't care - that in many areas, there are clear conflicts between what's being demanded in the name of "trans rights" and the rights of female people, and the rights of other marginalized groups (such as people with language processing difficulties, memory problems, dementia, and Muslims and orthodox Jews).

Moreover, the blatantly unfair policies put in place to accommodate males who want in on female sports have been dispiriting, demoralizing and rage-inducing for girls and women looking on. Large numbers of women and girls have been crushed and outraged to see how officials, journalists, activists and others who claim they "progressive" and "on the right side of history" have bent over backwards to be kind to male athletes like Lia Thomas, Telfer and Ivy and to "respect their pronouns" whilst at the same time saying the female athletes forced to compete against athletes like Thomas, Telfer and Ivy - and to share their locker rooms with them - should suck it up and shut up, or else be derided as transphobes and subject to abuse and sanctions.

But with the Semenya decision in 2019 - and more recently with the revised policies announced by orgs like World Rugby, FINA, UCI and British Triathlon, and the position of UK Sports Councils and the UK government officials - the pendulum in some circles is starting to swing the other way. Fairness for female athletes is finally beginning to be restored in some sports at least at the elite levels.

I know this is not what you and people like Veronica Ivy want to hear, testy - but too bad and tough noogies.

Like Boris Johnson recently said when announcing his resignation as PM of the UK, "them's the breaks." Or as us mums tell toddlers when they keep throwing their toys out of their prams or making a din by banging their spoons against their highchairs and wailing at the top of their lungs, "that's how the teething cookie crumbles."

Really? I thought your argument was that the low t-level of some men WAS relevant because it created overlap with the women's level.

If the low t-level of men is irrelevant, and the high t-level of people with PCOS or CAIS is irrelevant, then the t-level is a very reliable marker to decide the eligibility in women's sports.

A few more things from Chand and Semenya cases with CAS.

Human sex is NOT binary, and there is NO single determinant of sex. Male and female categories of sports exist "for the benefits of broad class of female athletes."

Serum testosterone level enhances the athletic performance level, REGARDLESS of whether it is exogenous or endogenous. All the expert witnesses agreed on that point, including the ones representing Semenya.

CAS panel acknowledged that the current t-level was not the only relevant factor. The t-level a person has had since puberty is important.

DSD regulation is discriminatory. But it should not be vacated if it is necessary, reasonable, and proportionate.

The burden of proof that it is discriminatory rests on the side of the athlete, and Chand proved that in the first case.

The burden of proof that it is necessary, reasonable and proportionate rests on the side of IAAF. They failed to prove that in the first case, but proved that in the second case.

Part of the judgement on whether the regulation is necessary, reasonable and proportionate depends on whether there is an athlete producing outlier performance in a given event.

The "outlier performance" does not have to be at the same level as the performance level of top level men.

The expert witnesses on both sides did not agree on whether people with 5-ard had the same level of advantage in athletic performance. CAS came to the conclusion that this disagreement was irrelevant. (See the point above.)

Finally, a small correction on my previous post. CAS did indeed declare that Chand was a woman. (para 36 on page 12 below.)

The same progressives advocate for a lot of good things. They just don’t understand the ramifications of what they are advocating for now. People like Ivy might but others really don’t.

I agree that in the "Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification (Athlete with Differences of Sexual Development)" that the CAS approved in the Semenya decision in 2019, "IAAF does a lot of gymnastics in its rulebook to never touch the question of whether someone is a woman — the simp-favorite argument — or anything that denies a legal woman her gender identity"

However, I'd personally leave out the puerile "simp" diss for reasons that should be obvious to everyone reading this thread.

The IAAF/WA rules pertaining the eligibility of athletes with 46,XY DSDs for competition in women's events have been intentionally and cleverly crafted to sidestep issues of gender identity and legal sex altogether.

This is because the IAAF/WA and CAS no not place much stock any more in the significance of the legal sex, gender identities, or claimed gender identities of 46, XY DSD athletes who seek to compete in women's sports.

I explained why in one of my earlier posts that you declared unacceptable in your self-appointed role as officious boss man of this thread. Speaking of which, you might want to take a step back because your desperate, furious and fatuous efforts to restrict the convo so no one can discuss or get to the core issues at hand here aren't persuading anyone to your POV. They just make you come across as lame and pathetic.

The regulations have been set out as they are also to prevent the IAAF/WA from getting sued for unlawful discrimination based on sex and physical sex characteristics, and for unlawful discrimination on gender identity grounds in those jurisdictions where gender identity has been made a "protected characteristic" in local, state, national or regional international anti-discrimination laws.

Yet another reason the IAAF/WA regulations pertaining to 46,XY DSD athletes seeking to compete in women's events have been written the way they are is to make it crystal clear that the kinds of medical exams and investigations that athletes suspected of being 46,XY DSD due to having male-levels of T are exactly the sorts of medical exams investigations that any female person would go through as a matter of course if she reached 16, 17 or 18 without ever having had a menstrual period, or there was medical reason to suspect she might have PCOS, LOCAH or an testosterone-secreting tumor.