Maybe we should categorize people into the altitude above sea level they were born. Only people born between sea level and 100m can compete together. Only those between 100m-500m together. Only 500m - 1000m together. Etc.
Maybe we should categorize people into the altitude above sea level they were born. Only people born between sea level and 100m can compete together. Only those between 100m-500m together. Only 500m - 1000m together. Etc.
Banana Bread wrote:
Maybe we should categorize people into the altitude above sea level they were born. Only people born between sea level and 100m can compete together. Only those between 100m-500m together. Only 500m - 1000m together. Etc.
The more categories you have, the less appealing to spectators; and the more complicated verification of eligibility to compete becomes.
Just look at the Paralympics for this sort of thing ... loads of different categories which the casual spectator doesn't understand, and category gaming is rife.
KiwiG wrote:
Not normal wrote:
The IAAF has set the T limit at 5.0nmol/L. That's 60% higher than the 3.0 to 3.1 which is the highest known T for any woman not having a serious disease (tumor growth) that would make her an unlikely candidate for championship athletics.
The average for women is around 0.7.
So ... if you test at higher than the IAAF limit, ain't nothing remotely normal about you. And you are not an XX woman.
So now IAAF has set a maximum allowable T value. Anyone under that value is ok, anyone over, not so. Given that we're not all clones, some competitors may be at the average of 0.7, while some may, in theory be at 4.9. Both are now, according to IAAF rules, perfectly ok to compete against each other in the same event. The 4.9 athlete has a clear advantage over the 0.7 athlete (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) so one has a legal advantage over the other. How long will it be before the 0.7 athlete takes T enhancing drugs to bring them up under the IAAF legal limit of 4.9. The IAAF has opened that door by setting a maximum allowable limit. So taking a performance enhancing drug that, according to IAAF does not give a significant advantage if kept under a certain value, should be perfectly fine. Athletes are already doing this today, with vitamin supplements, thyroid medications, and micro-dosing. Give enough time and every female athlete on the 800m start line will have a 4.99 T value.
The argument for setting a level of 5 nm is that testosterone levels up to that point do not of themselves confer competitive advantage. Technically, someone might dope to increase T-levels to that point but it would not be believed to improve their performance. Above that level it is believed it would.
doping with testosterone is still illegal. That is not at issue in any of the current cases. Athletes testing positive for exogenous testosterone will still be committing an antidoping violation and will still be charged.
Armstronglivs wrote:
triathleteguru wrote:
Sorry, but you are wrong:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/And what is the statistical likelihood of this kind of freak mutation occurring? In almost all instances, except cases like, this DSD46XY do not develop ovaries. But then people are sometimes born without certain limbs, or with an extra limb, or organs outside their body. So aberrations, of any kind, can occur, but without significant statistical presence.
True in all cases, except the exceptions, this is true is a tautology.
Here is another example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680992/We don't know how frequent this occur as there typically isn't karyotyping of every individual in the population. We've probably greatly overestimated the proportion of 46XY women who appear absolutely normal as they are absolutely normal, while women who develop abnormally are more likely to be karyotyped/ genetically tested. Biological sex is really not as simple as you would like it to be.
dingle wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And what is the statistical likelihood of this kind of freak mutation occurring? In almost all instances, except cases like, this DSD46XY do not develop ovaries. But then people are sometimes born without certain limbs, or with an extra limb, or organs outside their body. So aberrations, of any kind, can occur, but without significant statistical presence.
True in all cases, except the exceptions, this is true is a tautology.
Here is another example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680992/We don't know how frequent this occur as there typically isn't karyotyping of every individual in the population. We've probably greatly overestimated the proportion of 46XY women who appear absolutely normal as they are absolutely normal, while women who develop abnormally are more likely to be karyotyped/ genetically tested. Biological sex is really not as simple as you would like it to be.
As I have said previously, freaks can be found anywhere in nature, but their existence doesn't change the overwhelming preponderance of norms - for any species - and in man, that includes genetic/biological male and female. In almost all individuals, we are not an ersatz mixture of the two. For example, the WHO estimates that DSD46XY make up 0.01% of the population. The fact of their existence is matched by their statistical rarity. The same - but even more so - applies to XY individuals capable of bearing children - almost all other DSD46XY do not have ovaries. They probably come to light in the medical literature because they stand out as exceptions. I am not calling them monsters, but they are likely to be as isolated an instance as the Elephant Man. The overwhelming majority of us are not as he was, and so, again, the overwhelming majority of us are individuals with either a uterus or testes - male or female. The very few who aren't doesn't change that reality.
KiwiG wrote:
Not normal wrote:
The IAAF has set the T limit at 5.0nmol/L. That's 60% higher than the 3.0 to 3.1 which is the highest known T for any woman not having a serious disease (tumor growth) that would make her an unlikely candidate for championship athletics.
The average for women is around 0.7.
So ... if you test at higher than the IAAF limit, ain't nothing remotely normal about you. And you are not an XX woman.
So now IAAF has set a maximum allowable T value. Anyone under that value is ok, anyone over, not so. Given that we're not all clones, some competitors may be at the average of 0.7, while some may, in theory be at 4.9. Both are now, according to IAAF rules, perfectly ok to compete against each other in the same event. The 4.9 athlete has a clear advantage over the 0.7 athlete (or we wouldn't be having this discussion) so one has a legal advantage over the other. How long will it be before the 0.7 athlete takes T enhancing drugs to bring them up under the IAAF legal limit of 4.9. The IAAF has opened that door by setting a maximum allowable limit. So taking a performance enhancing drug that, according to IAAF does not give a significant advantage if kept under a certain value, should be perfectly fine. Athletes are already doing this today, with vitamin supplements, thyroid medications, and micro-dosing. Give enough time and every female athlete on the 800m start line will have a 4.99 T value.
Their testing might catch those taking androgens
Good.
I will try starting Testosterone 5mg every day for 1-2 weeks then increase to 10mg every day. Purchased on https://steroids-evolution.com. On my first cycle I do not exceed 20mg a day. After first cycle I will do between 10mg-40mg in a day.
Armstronglivs wrote:
As I have said previously, freaks can be found anywhere in nature, but their existence doesn't change the overwhelming preponderance of norms - for any species - and in man, that includes genetic/biological male and female. In almost all individuals, we are not an ersatz mixture of the two. For example, the WHO estimates that DSD46XY make up 0.01% of the population. The fact of their existence is matched by their statistical rarity. The same - but even more so - applies to XY individuals capable of bearing children - almost all other DSD46XY do not have ovaries. They probably come to light in the medical literature because they stand out as exceptions. I am not calling them monsters, but they are likely to be as isolated an instance as the Elephant Man. The overwhelming majority of us are not as he was, and so, again, the overwhelming majority of us are individuals with either a uterus or testes - male or female. The very few who aren't doesn't change that reality.
As I just said, we probably greatly underestimate 46XY women who have functional ovaries as they will have no reason to be karyotyped as the their development will not appear abnormal. The fact that they are rare in the literature does not reflect that they are necessarily rare in reality. Furthermore .01% is still approximately several million people.
On the flip side of chromosomal determinism is the existence of 46XX men, who, by your rules, would be perfectly able to participate in women's sport.
dingle wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
As I have said previously, freaks can be found anywhere in nature, but their existence doesn't change the overwhelming preponderance of norms - for any species - and in man, that includes genetic/biological male and female. In almost all individuals, we are not an ersatz mixture of the two. For example, the WHO estimates that DSD46XY make up 0.01% of the population. The fact of their existence is matched by their statistical rarity. The same - but even more so - applies to XY individuals capable of bearing children - almost all other DSD46XY do not have ovaries. They probably come to light in the medical literature because they stand out as exceptions. I am not calling them monsters, but they are likely to be as isolated an instance as the Elephant Man. The overwhelming majority of us are not as he was, and so, again, the overwhelming majority of us are individuals with either a uterus or testes - male or female. The very few who aren't doesn't change that reality.
As I just said, we probably greatly underestimate 46XY women who have functional ovaries as they will have no reason to be karyotyped as the their development will not appear abnormal. The fact that they are rare in the literature does not reflect that they are necessarily rare in reality. Furthermore .01% is still approximately several million people.
On the flip side of chromosomal determinism is the existence of 46XX men, who, by your rules, would be perfectly able to participate in women's sport.
Whatever they choose to call themselves, XX are not men.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?