Maybe I am a textbook case of NPD ...[/quote]
The only correct statement you have supplied on this thread. But we can be firmer than "maybe".
Maybe I am a textbook case of NPD ...[/quote]
The only correct statement you have supplied on this thread. But we can be firmer than "maybe".
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Mboma and Niyonsaba have basically the same overall physiology as billions of other people on the planet who are male."
In a nutshell. But there are morons on this thread, unable to read your excellent and informative posts, who cannot grasp this.
You are quoting a LRC poster. Not evidence. As always.
You can be XY DSD and be phenotypically female.
ah5 wrote:
"I am Sam" is a manipulative cvnt, just like Armstronglivs.
Thanks. Maybe its our age and life experience, or maybe the reliance on facts, but why waste time in meaningful argument with a moran, that has had it explained to him by, in particular, RunRagged, in a way that a 11 yr old would understand?
The fact that he keeps at it with the same moronic responses, without counter facts, is an example of trolling. Doesn't deserve the effort people like RunRagged is going to, but we thank her for her efforts.
This post was removed.
Vancomycin wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
"Mboma and Niyonsaba have basically the same overall physiology as billions of other people on the planet who are male."
In a nutshell. But there are morons on this thread, unable to read your excellent and informative posts, who cannot grasp this.
You are quoting a LRC poster. Not evidence. As always.
You can be XY DSD and be phenotypically female.
You can be XY DSD and have testes. And they are the ones who will exceed the IAAF rules on testosterone.
Runragged presents better arguments on this than anyone else here. Are you now going to argue that Mboma and Niyonsaba are not DSD/intersex?
RunRagged wrote:
Yes, but phenotype is not the same as physiology. Phenotype refers to observable characteristics, to how bodies appear. Physiology refers to how the cells, tissues, organs and systems of bodies function.
Great post, but you need to dumb it down for those slow witted ones.
Something along the lines of :
"The absence of a penis does not indicate the presence of a vagina"...or...
"Just because you can receive penile penetration, it doesn't mean you have a vagina"
etc..
These guys can barely read, so one sentence max
This post was removed.
You won't find that out here. Your posts aside, these threads are like wading in a trough of pig manure.
Armstronglivs wrote:
RunRagged wrote:
But these guys are not my audience. The lurkers are. Also, most of the material in my posts about the DSD issue is stuff I've written for other purposes. I'm posting this material on LRC because a) XY DSDs in women's athletics is a topic of interest for site users; and b) to test out how well my material holds up, to see what kind of objections and counter arguments it will inspire, and to learn whether there are holes in my information and flaws in my reasoning that I'm unaware of.
You won't find that out here. Your posts aside, these threads are like wading in a trough of pig manure.
Well stop defecating all over!
Personally, i'd like your view on the points below:
1) Are you aware of any study on the impact of long-time production of testosterone on sport performance even from the moment the level is artificially lowered? Knowing this will definitely affect my opinion on point 2.
2) Would you agree to keep the possibility for 46XY DSDs who identify themselves as women to participate in female sport events, provided that they lower their T level according to the regulation (off course assuming that the regulation is extended to all events)?
3) Is it really impossible to re-introduce a mandatory test? Today much more is known about DSD, it's possible to "classify" DSD cases based on the likely impact of testosterone on sport performance, and the test would be a very simple and fair way to decide who can compete against whom without all the politics and polluted communication we see today.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
Thanks. Very clear and detailed. Then i'm even against the current regulation, the only alternative is a separate category. Or you think there's another alternative?
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
Jimmkner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You won't find that out here. Your posts aside, these threads are like wading in a trough of pig manure.
Well stop defecating all over!
And an example just to reinforce my point above.