Can the BroJos stop using XX / XY as descriptors in the women's 800m races?

Allowing males to compete against actual females if they reduce their testosterone makes no sense, because having more testosterone is not the only advantage males have. One simple way to look at this is height. Males above 6'2" are very common, but females of that height are less than 0.1%. So for example a basketball team would be greatly improved by having as many males as possible.

https://culturallyboundgender.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bilde.jpg

Armstronglivs wrote:

Vancomycin wrote:

What is the developmental process that drives those differences, you're claiming its not testosterone response?

That's not what I am saying. The biological advantages XY males have are not confined to higher levels of testosterone. From puberty the biological features that males typically develop include bigger muscles, bones and grater cardio-vascular capacity than females. Reducing testosterone levels in mature athletes doesn't take away those advantages. Testosterone therefore isn't the sole measure of advantage.

But this is not the result of having Y chromosome. It is the result of processing testosterone. If your body cannot respond to T, you won't develop those features. So we should not focus on the chromosome as the source of advantage.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biological advantages XY males have are not confined to higher levels of testosterone. From puberty the biological features that males typically develop

The advantages exist long before puberty.

There are people who really believe the reason boys run around and fight while girls play with dolls and tea sets is because they're told to by society. These people are utterly wrong. The biological differences are real and highly relevant to activity.

Among the more important differences is in the amygdala, which hard-wires boys to respond physically to stress, and girls to respond mentally.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The biological advantages XY males have are not confined to higher levels of testosterone. From puberty the biological features that males typically develop

The advantages exist long before puberty.

There are people who really believe the reason boys run around and fight while girls play with dolls and tea sets is because they're told to by society. These people are utterly wrong. The biological differences are real and highly relevant to activity.

Among the more important differences is in the amygdala, which hard-wires boys to respond physically to stress, and girls to respond mentally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala#Sex_distinction

Stop making sense.

SJW's heads will explode if you try and throw science at them.

Like my favorite t-shirt says, "Science doesn't give about what you believe!"

One thing is for certain. ---the women's and girl's category in all sports should have a high bar set for being allowed to compete in it. These rules should emphasize protecting the majority, the XX women, and should not be set up to protect the very few outliers. ...Those few can compete in the "open" class, otherwise refered to as the Mens category.

Dont like it? Like Caster said last week when obliviously sounding off about her physical "gifts" everybody is just jealous about, "too bad!".

Armstronglivs wrote:

That's not what I am saying. The biological advantages XY males have are not confined to higher levels of testosterone. From puberty the biological features that males typically develop include bigger muscles, bones and grater cardio-vascular capacity than females. Reducing testosterone levels in mature athletes doesn't take away those advantages. Testosterone therefore isn't the sole measure of advantage.

Evidence out there is low quality and unclear. Some evidence that transwomen end up with lower bone masses (more similar to women than men):

-- for example

Not making the case that these facets are inconsequential, they may be, but evidence is not nearly clear enough for you to be as certain as you are. Things like cardiovascular capacity and bone mass could very well be influenced post-puberty by testosterone (or lack thereof).

You are saying things like they are fact but they simply are not. It gets tiring having to run interference on overconfident ideologues.

Just Another LRC Idiot wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That's not what I am saying. The biological advantages XY males have are not confined to higher levels of testosterone. From puberty the biological features that males typically develop include bigger muscles, bones and grater cardio-vascular capacity than females. Reducing testosterone levels in mature athletes doesn't take away those advantages. Testosterone therefore isn't the sole measure of advantage.

But this is not the result of having Y chromosome. It is the result of processing testosterone. If your body cannot respond to T, you won't develop those features. So we should not focus on the chromosome as the source of advantage.

Your body can't produce male levels of testosterone (10-20 times the female level) without the male chromosome, and hence functioning testes. XX women cannot produce those levels of testosterone. Basic biology. That is why the IAAF has identified the testosterone problem is with DSD males - XY - not females.

Pot calling kettle black.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Pot calling kettle black.

At least you've given up the faux-biology shtick. Run-of-the-mill insults are more your style.

Harambe wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Pot calling kettle black.

At least you've given up the faux-biology shtick. Run-of-the-mill insults are more your style.

I see you've run out of argument.

My "faux biology schtick" is based on what has been reported in articles on this issue as well as commonly available mainstream scientific information on the net. Perhaps, from your superior scientific understanding, you can explain how you can have male levels of testosterone without being male XY?