OH WOW... Nick Symmonds taking on Hyperandrogenism

Saint Nick wrote:

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

Womens sports would either be ruined or forever indebted to Nick if he tried to force this stunt.

Just needs to call himself a transgendered cross dressing lesbian and he is good to go.

I see an opportunity here...

The people wanting this are the same who want to ignore ALL gender & chromosome facts re: everyday life & bathrooms.

You argue against the establishment that the current facts used are not enough in 1 instance (T&F). Then you argue against the establishment to ignore ALL facts in the next instance (normal life). You people just want your anti-establishment fix.

This is all a show. He will soon pull a 180 and compete in women's races. This guy can't stand losing. Going for the women's world record is his goal.

You heard it here first.

P.s. Rojo I'm surprised you never competed as a woman.

Hermes link ice blue mink wrote:

baseline testosterone production in men is a bell curve....should we test everyone's T levels at the beginning of the season and have LO-MID-HI divisions to make everything fair? men with higher levels of natural T have an advantage over their counterparts, right?

same could apply for women.

Wrong. there is a threshold at which more testosterone no longer offers a competitive advantage. the difference between low t and normal range t is obvious, but between individuals in the low range of normal and the high range of normal is practically non-existent

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.

You left out XYY

His statement is great. He's right about athletes needing to speak up. How can Melissa Bishop just take this shit? I feel awful for her but she needs to take a stance and be the poster child for unfairness leveled by the CAS.

And let's keep calling them men's and women's events instead of XY and XX.

If athletes can't or won't conform to those classifications they should default to XY, or compete with other genetic anomalous types in the Special Olympics like people with Down's Syndrome. See, "Special" Olympics for the special snowflakes. It's nice ☺️

MulletXC wrote:

Wasn't Symmonds a biochemistry major?

Yeah. A lot of people look good on paper from their education, but most struggle to translate what they learn in class to real-world problems. I doubt he drew on any of his education while making this video. If he had, it wouldn't be this misinformed.

Some hacker please delete this video

Just another guy wrote:

Oh brother, the XX vs XY takes care of 99.99% of all issues, and should be the main basis for the rule. But you could add the below to make things even simpler and remove all outliers:

XX = must be strictly XX AND have no testes

XY = everybody else (XY, XXY, XXYY, XXXY, and XO)

Close, but not quite.

Should be

XX, XO

XY, XXY, XXY, XXYY

aka Y vs no-Y

Learn something before posting. XO is a Turner's Syndrome female.

close but not right wrote:

Should be

XX, XO

XY, XXY, XXY, XXYY

aka Y vs no-Y

Adding to my own brilliant point, this could also be called open (male) vs no-Y-chromosome (female).

The division you be based on genetics. Inborn. A hard and fast rule.

A testosterone limit is stupid. Testosterone level is not an inborn, set characteristic like XY or XX chromosomes.

Is having a higher testosterone level (a) advantageous in sport and (B) more common among XY males? Of course. But so is having narrower hips, higher human growth hormone, greater cardiac output or any one of a number of characteristics.

Gender Cheats wrote:

Chromosome limits are discriminatory

Of course they are. By the literal definition of the word, we WANT them to reliably discriminate (aka DISTINGUISH) between two classes of human.

That is the whole idea. The current problem is that visual inspection or self-declaration don't discriminate/distinguish in a way that is relevant to sports.

Neither will testosterone levels. Just like body fat percentage, testosterone level is a PHENOTYPIC and modifiable characteristic. The only hard and fast way to classify someone is an objective and permanent way, one that could be applied at childhood, is a GENOTYPIC characteristic: is there a Y chromosome?

Think of it this way. Would testosterone testing have told Semenya or any other hyperandrogenic "female" athlete at age 10 what category is? NO. At 10 Semenya looked like any other pre-pubescent kid, because her internal testes weren't yet producing high levels of testosterone, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER YOUNG KID. However, a simple test at birth or in childhood can tell you XY vs XX. It can be done on literally any cell in the body.

Nothing like a nice cold brew to discuss this pressing issue.

Saint Nick wrote:

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

Extrapolating from his 2016-2017 performance to 2020, Caster wipes the floor with Nick.

Gender Cheats wrote:

The only hard and fast way to classify someone is an objective and permanent way, one that could be applied at childhood, is a GENOTYPIC characteristic: is there a Y chromosome?

However, a simple test at birth or in childhood can tell you XY vs XX. It can be done on literally any cell in the body.

It's not as simple as just a Y chromosome. There are quite a few mutations associated with the SRY gene that can lead to a phenotype not usually predicated by an individual's karoytpe.

For instance, people with Sweyer syndrome can be phenotypically female with a uterus, fallopian tubes, and a typical female range of testosterone, despite a male karotype.

There is also 46, XX which is caused by the translocation of the SRY gene to an X chromsome. An individual would be XX but would develop phenotypically as a male.

While I agree for the need to have stricter rules to protect female competition, to call this "simple" or "objective" or whatever the heck else makes you a moran.

fffggghhh wrote:

MulletXC wrote:

Wasn't Symmonds a biochemistry major?

Yeah. A lot of people look good on paper from their education, but most struggle to translate what they learn in class to real-world problems. I doubt he drew on any of his education while making this video. If he had, it wouldn't be this misinformed.

I agree completely. I was posting in response to Symmonds "reading one wikipedia article". Basic science is much different than the endocrinology and embryology in question but he probably has some foundation in it whether he acts like it or not.

Easy fix; eliminate all competition, marriage and bathrooms...that was easy, maybe I should run for precedent.

No, no, don't bring science here please. Only use offensive language, derogatory terms and lots of oversimplification of complex issues.

Let's all just have a beer decide the solution to all the world's problems in 60 seconds a piece.

Nothing is complicated, #MAGA.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Nix n nick wrote:

Please summarize. Don't want to watch his video.

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

That is the most f#$ked up thing I've read in quite a while: men and women = antiquated terms? wow, just wow you think the world can't get anymore insane....