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

‘Performance metrics’ is deservedly in quotes because you couldn’t pick a lamer way to categorize ‘performance’ than by looking at that data in isolation. Cherry picking all the way.

You are wasting your time here. Other posters are 100% satisfied with their own definition of "men" and "women" and have no interest in engaging any further discussion. All they want is to repeat their talking point over and over. It does not matter whether their position is defensible at CAS, because they are not the ones who have to defend it.

I will give you my answer regarding why t-level is overemphasized. It is easily quantifiable, and there is virtually no overlap between men and women. The lack of ambiguity is the main reason.

"Having gone through male puberty" is not quantifiable. But "having started testosterone suppression by age 12" is quantifiable. That's why the new FINA rule is written the way it is. They have consulted legal experts to make sure the new policy is defensible.

Of course the bottom 1%. There’s enough prior context in this thread for anyone to fill in that blank, I would think.

You’ve gone into irrelevance now. Try articulating something substantive on the topic.

I don't disagree.

If “virtually” means almost no overlap but not no overlap (as it usually does in English), we agree. The existence of this small percentage of cis women indistinguishable from some cis men is of great importance to the small percentage of people who happen to be trans women and excluded.

Glad we agree going through male puberty is not (easily) quantifiable. Glad we also agree that FINA doesn’t agree with simplistic “women are born women, period!” arguments because the 12 year limit is clearly not the same thing as natal gonadal characteristics (sex organs at birth for the reading challenged) that the simps keep harping.

Knock it off. You are the one prattling on and on about gametes for the last two pages AFTER I corrected myself. Please demonstrate reading comprehension ability of my posts 58 and 64. We have no difference of understanding of your definitions. Sex organs at birth (your definition of male/female) = natal gonadal characteristics. You agreed with me AFTER I already clarified that “size” is largely not important but not altogether irrelevant precisely because of DSD/intersex pathologies exactly as both of us pointed out.

So cut this nonsensical nitpicking distraction and focus on substance.

And there it is folks, it only took 112 pages but Testy finally revealed their actual motivation: misogyny. Was mommy mean to you?

I understand it is not easy to accept when proven wrong. Rest assured you won’t see that ego in me.

Heres what you said: “At the elite level, it’s an unarguable fact that the men are stronger, faster, taller, etc. (whatever matters most for that particular sport) than the women. Sure, at the non-elite level there is overlap but to call that ‘unfair’ makes one sound like a whiny child.“.

I gave you scientific evidence to the contrary for one of those, height, being true even at elite level, not just general population. Weight is universally correlated with strength, your other metric, in elite bodies whose compositions are all optimized for the sport.

Now you’d like sport-specific analysis of more performance advantageous metrics, yes? Will you care to actually read the paper and have the openness to change your mind if the data in the paper contradicts your intuition?

There is a clear gap between men and women is not true. There is an overlap of distributions. What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.

You are incorrect. It’s silly to say “their” metrics are restricted to solely those metrics when one points to a paper studying those particular metrics. I pointed to the paper to prove your claim incorrect that there was no overlap amongst elites, only amongst the general population, for a couple of metrics you stated.

You are welcome to come up with a list of your favorite metrics (VO2Max, aerobic capacity, muscle mass, endogenous T, leg length, etc.) that you think are critical predictors of performance and study those instead. Others have done some of it and more is being done. The science as of today doesn’t have all the answers.

Height alone is meaningless. For some sports it is disadvantage. So yes, I want to see sport-specific performance metrics and not just in isolation. If you want to say some WNBA players are taller than NBA players and use that to prove a point you are proving nothing. Taller in isolation does not equal performance in basketball. Much like speed doesn’t equate to performance in football (soccer). Much like weight doesn’t equate to performance in running, cycling, cross country skiing, or any other endurance sport. Some overlap of one/some metric(s) is meaningless to performance.

The ‘clear gap’ I refer to is at the elite level, or if you look at anthropomorphic data, at any given percentage of the population. There is no arguing that.

I’ve been proven wrong and changed my position on many things on my lifetime. I happen to like learning which is why I get involved in these discussions at all. If I’m missing some big piece of the picture, the best way for me to discover that is to try and argue my stance. I’ve honestly learned a lot from RunRagged’s posts on these forums. From yours, not so much, but there’s still time.

But you go on to say this: “What you probably mean is that almost all men are much more dominant in any athletic sport than most women, which is universally acknowledged and being disputed by no one.”

…which I’m not quite sure how to interpret. If you take a male who is dominant in a men’s sport and put them in the female equivalent they will dominate. If you take a dominant woman and do the same, they most certainly will not be dominant any more. You can go several steps further down in the male category before you find one who won’t be dominate in female sports. And that is all one should need to know to realize that men don’t belong in women’s sports.

Indistinguishable on the performance-predictive metrics (eg endogenous T or others) under consideration, not indistinguishable in entirety. These are silly nitpicks.

Learn to write in fewer than many long paragraphs in every post simply by staying on point.

Haha it is true, a lot of olympians have “low testosterone levels”

Please avoid “sky is blue” type of statements that no one has any disagreement with as the basis of your argument. No one said height alone is sufficient to predict performance.