RIP Norm Macdonald: How Macdonald's Simple-Truth Logic Could Help Solve the Transgender/Intersex Crisis In Women's Sports

Rojo, I'm curious . . . where do you stand on transwomen--who have had gender reassignment surgery and T-levels in the normal female range) competing in middle distance events--800 to 5K? Who knows, maybe I'll starting training and attempt to run a sub 10 minute mile for the All-American standard for 70+ women.

You've got to be kidding me. You post that and then a p.s. about being respectful? C'mon, at least try to be serious and open minded about an important issue. Two steps below the Cole Hocker - vax the world first opinion.

Not a shock wrote:

Vancomycin wrote:

Rojo... a lot of your quoted post intentionally tramples on decades of nuance and improved understanding in both biology and feminist theory. Anyone that leverages "sexism" to dismiss and ignore the experiences of DSD and intersex woman is not acting in unbiased good-faith. These women have existed, and lived as women for millions of years.

To act like this post represents a consensus or even a reasonable view of the issues shows your preconceptions - which is ok - just be careful trotting this out as a "common sense" interpretation of the issues.

Hear hear. There is a fundamental, and likely intentional, misunderstanding by RoJo, RunRagged, and other posters about biological sex. It is not, and never has been, a strict binary. As you said, these woman have existed and lived as women for millions of years.

_______________________

Biological sex in human beings is and always has been binary and immutable. As RunRagged has painstakingly explained, people with DSDs can ultimately be classed as male or female. Some of these individuals will live in the gender role of the opposite sex--particularly women with CAIS--but this does not make these women female. Human beings are sexually dimorphic and either male or female, regardless of how people express themselves.

You talk about "decades of nuance" and "improved understanding" in feminism and biology, but neither of these things are true. Women & gender studies programs have long ignored biology and committed themselves to abstract and increasingly opaque theories that are never subjected to reality testing. (I have firsthand knowledge of this phenomenon). Postmodern philosophies in gender studies and queer studies, which deny the existence of objective reality and posit that science is a discourse meant to perpetuate white supremacy and heteronormativity, have now leaked into the biological and physical sciences where they are doing real damage. This is not progress. Sometimes people with too much education use their sophisticated thinking skills to create elaborate justifications for their niche worldviews.

Hear this: when you deny the existence of binary biological sex in human beings, you are also denying evolution.

The majority of RunRagged's wordy and wandering posts are just a gish-gallop of misdirection and reframing from the matter-at-hand. I find your additional attempts to write this all off this is a invasion of "postmoderism" into gender science and feminist philosophy... just funny.

When was the gene SRY discovered? Go do some background reading. Acting like these things have been set-in-stone for decades is just forcing history into your preconceptions.

Classification of humans into a sexual binary happened well before the first inklings of the biologic basis for sex were conceived. Using your framework of "denying the obvious/traditional" it is the "biological binary" that must be made compatible with the millennia assortment criteria. If anything, the modern biological sciences have broadened the sex and gender spectra beyond it's original rigidity!

Precious Roy wrote:

So, if Kipchoge comes out as transgender and has gender reassignment surgery to remove his testes, he can compete against women? Or is the rule that you can never have had functioning testes? And if that is the rule, what about intersex people who had surgery as a baby to remove male organs? And if that is ok, what about surgery at age 2, 4, 6, 10, 14? And what is meant by "functioning testes? Able to produce sperm and ejaculate? Or something less than that? And how much less?

Look up "testosterone" and you will have an answer. There will always be an exception, the rules cant cover every rare circumstance. DSD is difficult, as are other rare isorders that keep people from competing. But biological males wrestling girls for state championships and Castor S. are slam dunks it would seem.

Thank you for you for your very knowledgeable and heartfelt post.

From a biological perspective the decision making can be complicated and I strongly dispute the notion that sex is easily dichotomized. There is a rare DSD, for example, 46 XX ovotestes in which the person karyotypes female, but has a translocation of the SRY gene to one of their x chromosomes. The end result is variable, but the phenotype if usually female and there can be functioning ovaries and ovulation and even pregnancy is possible, but there are also can be functioning testes with elevated testosterone levels. I am an MD and could point out many other rare examples that are truly ambiguous. How do we categorize? What is a fair blanket rule?

As for the attitude of female athletes, I appreciate your perspective. It is not universal for sure. My daughter is a former "elite" hs and current college runner. She is adamant that tans women and dsd women be allowed to compete in the women's categories and she is very outspoken about this. She and her teammates consider all women (we are talking gender now not sex) her "sisters" and feels the damage done by excluding these women or creating a new category or forcing participation in the men's category is far greater than any damage done to cis gender, biological female women. I get it, this is just one perspective, but it is one that is present in the women's running community too. I do not think this is just about being politically correct that my daughter holds this view. In this regard I do not feel one size fits all either. There was a prior post that referenced that the rules should differ depending on the level of competition and the stakes. Certainly nobody should care about these issues in youth running and probably not in hs either. In college it is a bit trickier, but probably is not critical. In national level and global competition where money and livelihoods are on the line, definitely harder to figure out how best to fairly handle things.

I find Runrugged´s comments sane, clear and eloquent. Very attractive features in a woman . I am thus sure that I could be biased to agree with her. Which I do.

But I do think that although a panel of women with expertise in medicin and sports sounds like a good idea there might be wise to listen to opinions from non women. Those who wish to be included but also men.

Yes, there are men in the IOC and maybe IAAF that seem to be a bit populistic but the populism that has been driving this is actually very much from females not in sports. It is very easy to become your own enemy. And hasn´t IAAF abeen trying to protect womens but struggle with political preassure?

And after all, attraction between the sexes is a part in why we have them. I think sometimes men are better to defend the interest of women than women and also the other way around.

[quote]RunRagged wrote:

sttrunner20: Since it will be up to your generation to sort all this out, a coda to my earlier replies to you: I believe that all persons of both sexes should be treated fairly and without unjust discrimination, and that those with inherited or acquired health conditions including DSDs deserve compassion, good medical care and bodily autonomy. I believe that what was done to a lot of persons with DSDs historically is horrific and a gross violation of their human rights.

As I said previously, I can live with the loophole that was created to allow athletes with XY CAIS to compete in women's IAAF/WA and Olympic competition in the late 1980s, and I have no problem considering persons with XY CAIS to be women socially and legally. But IMO, in the years since that loophole was created, it's been opened up way too wide to allow in athletes with very different kinds of XY DSDs who have all been through male puberty and thus have all the same advantages over female competitors in sports that bog standard males with normal urogenital anatomy do.

As much as I believe in consideration for XY DSD people, I also believe that XX female people deserve fair play in sports and other areas of life too. Maybe you're not aware of this, but XX female people were denied basic rights and excluded from a wide range of competitive and community sports as well as from many other areas of life for a very long time. Solely because of our sex.

When I was growing up, there were no scholastic sports at all for the vast majority of girls and women attending grade schools, HS and college/university in the US - some of us didn't even get PE classes. As a result, those of us who did sports had to do so through clubs and community groups, or on our own. But even then, we were often excluded. In 1961, for example, the USA's Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) officially banned girls and women from competing in all U.S. road races. And of course, we were prohibited from long-distance events like the NY and Boston marathons until 1972. It took massive concerted protests for those races to finally let us in - and initially marathon organizers tried to make women run in a separate cordon behind all the men's field. Moreover, women weren't allowed to have an Olympic marathon until 1984 - less than 40 years ago.

Opening up women's sports to XY athletes with the kinds of DSDs that athletes like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui have as well as to XY persons with opposite-sex gender identities who've been through male puberty and obtained all the irreversible physical advantages that male puberty confers seems like a big step backwards to me, not a path forward.

Also, I think it's telling that it was the men running the sports governing bodies who decided that women's sports should be all about "diversity and inclusion" for some XY people - and that today men are often the loudest and most insistent in demanding that inclusion of some XY persons in women's sports should take precedence over fairness for XX people in the female category.

Why, I wonder, is all the burden of being "inclusive" always being placed on female people? Isn't it time that normally developed XY people did their bit for "diversity and inclusion" by accepting that XY DSD persons like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui were simply born with anatomical anomalies of the male urogenital tract, but other than that they are biological males like all others and thus deserve to be respected and welcomed into the world of men and men's sports? Isn't it time that boys and men in general got over the fact that some males prefer to "identify as" and dress/present as the opposite sex, and pitched in to help males with differences of gender identity feel welcome, safe and comfortable competing amongst males and using male locker rooms and loos?

Jaiyah Saelua, a fa’afafine - the Samoan word for (usually gay) males who "identify as" and "live as" or "live like" women - has been playing on the American Samoan men's soccer team for a decade now and has competed with the team in FIFA matches. Without any incidents or anyone having issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/sports/soccer/jonny-saelua-transgender-player-helps-american-samoa-to-first-international-soccer-win.html

To me, that's the kind of "diversity and inclusion" the sports world needs more of. Which is very different to the male incursion into female territory and the displays of male dominance that are hiding behind the banner of "diversity and inclusion" these days. From my perspective, the buzz words "diversity and inclusion" now too often mean adversity and exclusion for female people. The clarion call for "diversity and inclusion" sounds the death knell for fairness in female sports for female people and sends the message to girls and women: time's up for female-only competition and women's rights, ladies. Some males really, really want in on your sports and spaces now, so you best budge up, shut up and move over. Because as ever, males and their wants must come first, and it's your duty as the second-class sex to insure that males must get their way. [/quote

I might come back to this and write more, but you did bring up a lot of great points and it's honestly a very very complicated issue... I hear you - XX women weren't even able to play sports (which is outrageous and unfair) and still there needs to be more progress made I'd say - most women's sports at my school seemed to take the backseat to men's sports, and that's not the way it should be.... I'm not advocating for a man to declare he feels like a woman and then compete the next week as a woman, and I don't think anyone thinks that's fair. If that's happening, it shouldn't be. I guess where I fall on this issue (and I definitely need to do more research) is that it should be treated case by case. I agree, women with CAIS should compete with girls. To me, that's a no brainer and I say that with no hesitation. What intersex condition does Semenya have exactly? Is it some form of AIS? I think it gets tricky when it's super ambiguous..... I think then that if a person says they're a certain gender identity (that doesn't match their biological sex or may be hard to tell due to being intersex) their hormones must fall into a certain range and they need to wait to compete until this is achieved (minimum of 2 years I believe).

I have a transgender sibling, so I very much believe that trans women are women and should compete with women, especially in high school and college levels. With suicide rates so high and just general struggles of being different from peers, I don't think anyone should be excluded from sports. They are so important to everyone and shouldn't be limited to cisgender people. Now, I'm not a girl, so I'm not competing with these women so perhaps I shouldn't even have a say in this issue. I don't know honestly. I can see how a biological girl might feel angry if a transgender girl is winning all the races. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't really have a solution and I wish it was easier. It's a lose lose if they race with boys, aren't allowed to compete with girls, or are singled out and targeted when competing with girls.

I think at college/high school levels it's not a big deal. At the end of the day, it's just a race/event/game. I don't really know how to word this in a better way...

Star wrote:

Norm MacDonald was one of my favorite comedians.

That means he said funny things. And the entire point of anything he said would be to make people laugh.

I don't know why people keep referencing comedians to make a point about politics or anything serious.

Bill Maher said this. Joe Rogan said that.

Let's not have any discussions about what any comedian said and try to apply it to anything in real life.

Unless it's Carrot Top.

This is the only correct take on this subject in the entire thread.

Mid Age Guy wrote:

Star wrote:

Norm MacDonald was one of my favorite comedians.

That means he said funny things. And the entire point of anything he said would be to make people laugh.

I don't know why people keep referencing comedians to make a point about politics or anything serious.

Bill Maher said this. Joe Rogan said that.

Let's not have any discussions about what any comedian said and try to apply it to anything in real life.

Unless it's Carrot Top.

This is the only correct take on this subject in the entire thread.

Excellent! +1111

Sttrunner

I think you have captured the essence of the dilemma very well and clearly you have a lot of empathy and real deep understanding of the issues. One size fits all solution is NOT going to work. IMO, for most levels of athletics inclusion should trump "fairness." I would argue inclusion still trumps fairness even at a hs state meet or even D1 college competition, but others would draw the line elsewhere and think this position is wrong. No doubt as the importance of the competition increases fairness becomes more important, and may trump inclusion. Niyonsaba v Hassan in the 5K WC next year in Eugene is just not the same as some random meet in HS. Where to draw the line is such a hard call, and what is fair or not fair is not always easy to define either, but probably less of an issue.

This has been a good discussion but we should not allow posters to continuously insert the idea that people who have identified, and been treated as women their entire life are secretly representative of males trying to occupy female space and destroy female-only competition.

It's, as I have said in this thread, and disingenuous tactic that relies on gatekeeping around a mythical construct from traditional, rich, western, white, blah blah blah definitions of femininity to reduce a complex issue to a simple one and to shift the burden the least well-equipped to handle it.

Elite sport is entirely composed of outliers. Remember that. The reason for women's only competition is the performance gap. The focus should on identifying and classifying the reasons for that gap.

f*ck that slow, monotonous talking, rat voiced , squinting weirdo pos

+1. This wise old transwoman agrees with you. Well put.

+1. This wise old transwoman agrees. Well put, IMO.

Exactly, and well said. At the Olympics...well that's different, and yeah to have transgender women competing with cisgender women (even after their testosterone levels are lowered) might not be fair (I still don't know how much of an advantage they still have, if any, but I'd assume people are correct in saying that their bodies are structured differently since yes, they are biologically male). So there's probably some things that are still giving them an advantage. I'd say inclusion> fairness at high school and college. But it really is tricky. Even at the college level, what if a transgender woman comes in first and that determines which team wins the race? I'm sure people will be like "well if she wasn't competing, then...." And maybe I would speculate, too... But I guess in MOST cases in high school and college, I'm definitely focused on improving individually and just working to be the best team. There really is not easy solution, though.

rojo wrote:

“I feel that a basic requirement of being eligible to compete in elite women’s sport is to not have functioning testes.”

That sums up my thoughts perfectly. And I feel that last quote is the perfect way to shut down the advocates of intersex/transgender athletes such as Francine Niyonsaba, Caster Semenya, CeCe Telfer, Andraya Yearwood, etc. as it makes things easy to understand but does so in a way that isn’t mean or judgmental.

But women with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and PCOS can have the same, or even higher levels of testosterone as some of these women who are not fully sensitive to the testosterone their gonads produce, and that's not a problem?

All the throwing events, combat and team sports will lose a lot of athletes if we ban those athletes too.