OH WOW... Nick Symmonds taking on Hyperandrogenism

Simple.

oh guys don't worry, we've got a solution. no need for an objective threshold, ghost will just decide based in how he feels. his feelings are just so important, we don't need to be logical!

Melvin Treebender wrote:

I warned people stuff like this would happen when the gay marriage was passed. Anything goes now.

I warned people stuff like this would happen when women got the vote. Anything goes now.

Gender Cheats wrote:

Really, it's pure arrogance from him to think that this solution hasn't been considered.

I think he knows it has been considered. He is just saying it out loud because nobody else wants to.

Joseph Kenny wrote:

What about XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XO individuals, among others?

You will find that most XY individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome look phenotypically female. They will not want to compete as men. I would apply the Ted Haydon rule to this situation; does Nick Symmonds' proposal cause MORE people to compete or FEWER people to compete? I think it would cut competition opportunities a lot a marginalize people more. I think that this whole controversy is driven by fearful antipathy toward Caster Semenya.

Nick comes close. He may be a biochemist, but he's not a biologist. I made the perfect suggestion on another thread.

Background: XXY, XXYY and XXXY are phenotypically male. XO is phenotypically female. In short, the Y chromosome makes a man.

It should be Y vs no Y.

brogan1 wrote:

Gender Cheats wrote:

Really, it's pure arrogance from him to think that this solution hasn't been considered.

I think he knows it has been considered. He is just saying it out loud because nobody else wants to.

It was the policy for a lot of Olympic history. That's more than saying it out loud.

he's sitting here drinking a beer while talking too! this guy needs to just go away . I respect him as a runner and think he was awesome coming from D3 all the way to the olympics but seriously, time to go Nick.

Nick should just identify as female for 2020 and show Caster what's up.

dear younger me wrote:

he's sitting here drinking a beer while talking too! this guy needs to just go away . I respect him as a runner and think he was awesome coming from D3 all the way to the olympics but seriously, time to go Nick.

I laughed out loud when the camera zooms out and the neck of a beer is visible.

Nix n nick wrote:

Sorry, but we've been there before, and chromosome tests were thrown out years ago.

A better solution than Nick's would be to have only one category, "open." Totally fair to all. Sorry about women's sports, though, no one seems to be advocating for you. Even women's HS & college coaches seem to be blissfully unaware of what's going on here, and do not realize that their category of track may be facing extinction.

If the sex rules are left loosey goosey as they are now, and the women's category is not eliminated, then HS boys will be breaking all of the women's WRs.

I hope that CAS will allow a return of the IAAF rules to something approaching sanity.

Let's keep two categories, but change them slightly:

- "open" (i.e. open to everybody)

- name TBD (open to anyone non-XY and below a certain testosterone threshold)

asdfasdfasdfasdfasdf wrote:

What about a genetic XY individual with complete androgen insensitivity (e.g. Jamie Lee Curtis).

Phenotypically completely female with no real advantage over men.

Caster likely has partial androgen insensitivity?

They do have an advantage though: XY women with androgen insensitivity are way over represented in the Olympics.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We loved Nick's video. It takes guts to go out in public on this matter but what he says is common sense. If you are looking for a cliff notes version, go to the front page as we've made it the QOD. It's cued to play at the 3:03 mark. He does a nice summary in 60 seconds.

But basically he says in this day and age, people identify all sorts of different ways so let's get rid of the antiquated terms like men and women and have sport for xx and xy.

https://twitter.com/letsrundotcom/status/885672033400573953

NBA- A 6-6 guy has an unfair advantage, as a 5-6 guy is hard-pressed to even play college ball.

NFL, swimming- Same thing.

Boxing: There's a reach advantage.

Far as the above, along with XY, XX, etc... It's part of what we call TALENT.

Yup..... wrote:

BA- A 6-6 guy has an unfair advantage, as a 5-6 guy is hard-pressed to even play college ball.

NFL, swimming- Same thing.

Boxing: There's a reach advantage.

Far as the above, along with XY, XX, etc... It's part of what we call TALENT.

In that case, being a man is just talent so they should be able to compete against women.

You're missing that some athletes are crossing gender boundaries. There's no height divisions in basketball.

Here is my question.

If we don't go to a chromosone rule, but allow people to identify however they want, then what do we do in the case of the of CT High School sprinter who has a penis but now identifies as a woman?

In some states, a child can be listed a "U" when they are born and choose their gender later in life. What is going to stop a 4:14 spare college male from choosing to be a woman to win Olympic gold in the year 2036?

NW traveler wrote:

Generally I'm in disagreement with letsrun (rojo) but have to agree 100% with symmonds and the collective letsrun on this subject. It's a tough issue and symmonds makes sense with his starting point.

What topics of mine do you disagree with ? In my not so humble opinion, I'm almost always right.

Gender Cheats wrote:

Yup..... wrote:

BA- A 6-6 guy has an unfair advantage, as a 5-6 guy is hard-pressed to even play college ball.

NFL, swimming- Same thing.

Boxing: There's a reach advantage.

Far as the above, along with XY, XX, etc... It's part of what we call TALENT.

In that case, being a man is just talent so they should be able to compete against women.

You're missing that some athletes are crossing gender boundaries. There's no height divisions in basketball.

There's no height divisions? Exactly- Proved my point. Being a man or woman is gender. People on Earth are not identified by their chromosomes, but more broadly, by gender. This XXYY criteria won't work, until we look at a person & instinctively iD them as XXYY or whatever.

rojo wrote:

Here is my question.

If we don't go to a chromosone rule, but allow people to identify however they want, then what do we do in the case of the of CT High School sprinter who has a penis but now identifies as a woman?

In some states, a child can be listed a "U" when they are born and choose their gender later in life. What is going to stop a 4:14 spare college male from choosing to be a woman to win Olympic gold in the year 2036?

Testosterone limits are the best option. Chromosome limits are discriminatory and will be throws out by the court of arbitration for sport (as as test limits right now).

This XXYY, etc.. chomosome view is driven by people patting themselves on the back for a "good" idea & being anti-establishment. If you really felt this way, you would've argued HJ divisions for short people, etc.. & of the such long time ago. You're just show-boating anti-establishment.

Simple. Have a twenty question trivia test with ten questions devoted to rock lyrics and ten questions devoted to movies quotes. Women suck at this. Those athletes who pass can compete as a man and those who fail must compete as a woman.