Not that rare of a condition. Lynn Conway, better known for her contributions to microchip engineering, estimated over 20 years ago that the prevalence of trans people who needed full hormonal and surgical transition (although, certainly at that time, not all of them would be able to obtain it) was at least 1 in 500, and that a broader definition of transgender people could easily be 1% or more of the population. She did this based on counts of transgender genital surgeries in the US, similar estimates from other countries, estimates of prevalence of third-gender minorities in other cultures, and anecdotal evidence about the prevalence of crossdressers and how many of them seemed to go on to transition. All of these gave estimates in the same general range. At the time, the scientific consensus was that transsexuality was very rare, 1 in 30,000 for trans women and 1 in 100,000 for trans men.
Surprise, surprise: the engineer (also, one of the first several hundred trans women to transition in the US) who bothered to get the data and do a little math was right.
if anyone is interested. Trigger warning for the sort of people who post trigger warnings: she wrote this 20+ years ago and therefore inevitably uses dated language. Deal with it or don't, but don't whine about it.
Lynn Conway is a bad faith actor who engaged in a malicious smear campaign against J. Michael Bailey, which was uncovered by Alice Dreger--first in a peer-reviewed journal article, and later in her book, Galileo's Middle Finger. Conway, after identifying as an autogyenphile in private, took umbrage at Bailey's use of Ray Blanchard's typology of MTF transexuals because it attributed the desire to transition to homosexuality or autogynephilia. In other words, after admitting to autogynephilia, Conway attacked the charcter or a man whose ideas Conway had previously endorsed in private. These ideas were based on in-depth research with transsexuals conducted by people who were advocates of this tiny and mostly unknown group of people. Conway knowlingly, falsely accused Bailey of having sex with a research participant and other academic misconduct. During the attack campaign, Conway also posted a picture of Bailey's very young daughter, labeled something like "*ock-starved *itch." The exact phrase escapes me, but "*ock-starved" was definitely in there. This is not a person who is interested in reaching the truth about anything. This is somebody who will go to any lengths to promote an ideology upon which their entire subjective reality is based, regardless of whether that worldview has merit or not.
You can find Dreger's article about the smear campaign here:
As Carl Sagan said, they laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Blanchard, Bailey, and Dreger are a three-ring circus. The Blanchard/Bailey typology is a thin gloss of pseudoscientific credibility applied to old and hateful stereotypes about transgender people, especially transgender women. Nonetheless, they have the right to be challenged based on the facts, not by character assassination and harassment campaigns.
By the way, your own article, by Dreger herself, does not claim that Conway did any of what you say, certainly not posting that hatefully-captioned picture. Read it again, if you ever did. (I doubt, too, that you will be able to produce any sort of evidence that Conway, who had fully transitioned decades before The Man Who Would Be Queen came out, ever identified as an autogynephile.)
As it happens, I agree with Dreger's statement that the person who did do that "was not the sort of person who was good for a scholarly institution nor the sort who was good for transgender rights". It was wrong, without reservation, even if, as Dreger acknowledges, it was meant "to be a parody of Bailey’s alleged treatment of transsexuals in his book".
The Blanchard/Bailey model, and others intent on attributing extreme sexualized motivations to all trans people, simply do not fit their real-life experience. Conway herself shows this: she tried to transition while in her late teens at MIT, getting as far as hormones on her own, which was extraordinary for the 1950s. She's been in a relationship with one man for the past 30 or so years, and married for more than 20. Young transitioner, heterosexual after transition. "Homosexual transsexual", right? Safe to patronize, but grant no real status? Nope, she had a very successful career as a microchip engineer, before and after transition, and then as a professor of that subject, and has "stereotypically male" hobbies like whitewater canoeing and motocross. (Will you run from this, Ragged?) Must be one of those "autogynephiles"!
She's hardly the only one. I'm hard-pressed to think of a trans person I know who fits Bailey's stereotypes, and I've known a fair few. Yet Bailey and others on his side repeatedly try to dismiss everyone whose life is a counterexample by claiming that they must be lying about their experience. That's not science. It's a preconceived notion preserved by shutting out reality.
Oh, and since you ignored why I mentioned her in the first place: Conway was still right about the prevalence of transgender people when the scientific consensus was wrong, and wrong by actual orders of magnitude.
I asked you a simple question. You are confronted with an individual at work or school or wherever with a particular gender identity claim. Do you ignore it, deny it or try to accommodate it? You certainly don’t launch a psychological/sociological investigation, or do you?
You don't deny, ignore or accommodate.
You FIRE THEM if they wont knock it off. Or, we declare it a mental illness and the men dressed with white coats take them to a padded room.
"hunter wheres the blow wrote: It is not possible to create eligibility criteria that allows trans women to compete against cis women fairly."
Dont want to create a criteria. Women's sports is a woman's space. Men who claimed they transitioned to women do not belong there. Even if a so called trans woman finishes last, they don't belong there.
It is not possible to create eligibility criteria that allows trans women to compete against cis women fairly.
Can’t take seriously sweeping claims without any depth, nuance, or expert knowledge from someone who has never exhibited these traits on these boards on this topic. We disagree.
Are you the same person who spent an entire trans sports debate thread appealing to the expertise and state of the art research of World Athletics? Just wondering
Transgender is now mostly a combination of mental and emotion illness that is being exploited for ideological purposes, faddishness and a serious social contagion.
All this hoo-ha over Trans women competing, and yet not one trans woman is at an elite level or has ever won a medal in T&F. I wish World Athletics would focus more on the real issue in (women's) athletics, and that's doping. It's doped up females winning medals that is stopping clean women from getting on the podium, not trans women.
As for women with DSD, World Athletics announced the numbers of women - 13 in total, 7 in the longer events and 6 in the shorter events. Other than the more well-known women in the longer events, there is also Werkuha Getachew, who had to withdraw from the 800m before Tokyo and switched to the 3000sc.
In the short sprints, there are 3 other women in addition to the recent well-known names (Mboma, Masilingi & Seyni.) One must be another famous athlete, India's Dutee Chand. However, she failed a doping test for SARMs in January & is provisionally suspended anyway, so it's not clear if Coe included her in his list. If she is, then that only leaves two. Zambia's Kabange Mupopo announced she had DSD when she failed a dope test in 2017. She has been banned for the last 4 years but started competing again this January. I believe Tajikistan's Gulsumbi Sharifova is the sixth. She didn't compete in 2022 but I believe she is considered 'active'.
If these are the 6 women in the shorter events, that removes Fiordazila Cofil from the discussion. Many people have assumed she has DSD. However, Sharifova may not be considered active, and it's not clear whether the banned Chand is in his list. If not, perhaps Cofil is one. I will add there is no evidence for this other than our eyes and ears, and what we interpret from looking at her physique and hearing her speak. She may be 'innocent' of people's ignorance (?) who knows.
Oh, forgot to add; the timing of WA's announcement was clearly done to ensure no woman with DSD will be competing in Budapest. None of the women were forewarned or consulted prior to the announcement, which could have helped them start treatment - if they so chose - in order to be under the limit ready for Budapest. But of course, WA did not want this.
I think they are hoping that before Paris 2024 the current crop of women with DSD will just disappear.
All this hoo-ha over Trans women competing, and yet not one trans woman is at an elite level or has ever won a medal in T&F. I wish World Athletics would focus more on the real issue in (women's) athletics, and that's doping. It's doped up females winning medals that is stopping clean women from getting on the podium, not trans women.
As for women with DSD, World Athletics announced the numbers of women - 13 in total, 7 in the longer events and 6 in the shorter events. Other than the more well-known women in the longer events, there is also Werkuha Getachew, who had to withdraw from the 800m before Tokyo and switched to the 3000sc.
In the short sprints, there are 3 other women in addition to the recent well-known names (Mboma, Masilingi & Seyni.) One must be another famous athlete, India's Dutee Chand. However, she failed a doping test for SARMs in January & is provisionally suspended anyway, so it's not clear if Coe included her in his list. If she is, then that only leaves two. Zambia's Kabange Mupopo announced she had DSD when she failed a dope test in 2017. She has been banned for the last 4 years but started competing again this January. I believe Tajikistan's Gulsumbi Sharifova is the sixth. She didn't compete in 2022 but I believe she is considered 'active'.
If these are the 6 women in the shorter events, that removes Fiordazila Cofil from the discussion. Many people have assumed she has DSD. However, Sharifova may not be considered active, and it's not clear whether the banned Chand is in his list. If not, perhaps Cofil is one. I will add there is no evidence for this other than our eyes and ears, and what we interpret from looking at her physique and hearing her speak. She may be 'innocent' of people's ignorance (?) who knows.
13 *currently competing* confirmed during press conference, which would rule out Chand. I believe they were referring to the newly restricted categories and not to athletes that are suppressing T already. If Cofil is DSD she must already be suppressing. 17 were announced previously as current athletes they were monitoring.
Oh, forgot to add; the timing of WA's announcement was clearly done to ensure no woman with DSD will be competing in Budapest. None of the women were forewarned or consulted prior to the announcement, which could have helped them start treatment - if they so chose - in order to be under the limit ready for Budapest. But of course, WA did not want this.
I think they are hoping that before Paris 2024 the current crop of women with DSD will just disappear.
Oh c'mon. The tightening of the rules for XY DSD athletes in women's elite international track & field recently put into place by WA can't have come as a suprise to any affected athletes currently or recently competing in elite women's track & field - or to their coaches, teammates, national federations, sponsors and supporters, either.
The IAAF/WA has been trying to impose tighter restrictions on DSD athletes competing in elite international women's athletics with male levels of testosterone produced by male gonads, testes, for more than a decade. WA's efforts in this regard have never been a secret.
In the past decade, two prominent DSD athletes, Dutee Chand and Caster Semenya, have legally challenged IAAF/WA regulations that place restrictions on the testosterone levels of DSD athletes in women;s competition - and the legal battles fought out in court in the Chand and Semenya cases have made headline news around the world.
Since the CAS issued its decision in the Semenya case in mid-2019, World Athletlics has been open about looking for more scientific evidence that would cause the CAS to allow WA to extend the so-called "Semenya rules" to XY DSD athletes competing in all women's elite international events, not just middle-distance running events.
Last year, WA said it would be reviewing the rules put in place after the Semenya decision at the WA council meeting already long scheduled to take place in March 2023.
In January 2023, WA made a big show of issuing a press release setting out the "preferred options" for new rules pertaining to both XY trans-identified athletes and XY DSD athletes competing in the elite women's division. At that time, WA asked its member federations for feedback on its proposals and reminded the world that new rules would be voted in when the WA council formally met in March.
So the contention that none of the DSD athletes affected by the new rules "were forewarned or consulted" prior to WA's announcement is hogwash. They all had to know that rule changes were afoot.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.