JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

I don’t think we need to go that far. Separate males and females, and then anything after that is fair game.

Intersex is sticky. That may need to be a separate category. With trans.

Why?

Because they don’t fit in neatly with make or female (I’m talking intersex). There’s nowhere else to put them. Trans should be with their biological sex but we all know what a sh¡t show that conversation is. So give them their own category and be done with it.

People with genetic mutations don't fit in well as humans. Should there be a separate category for anyone with a genetic mutation that assists them in competition?

I personally don’t think so.

Sex is a pretty straightforward way to separate 98% of the population. There is a reason why we separate males from females.

If you have another mutation that gives you an advantage within your sex category, more power to you.

I would agree with this.

Olympians are de facto the 0.01% outliers for their respective sex categories in terms of athletic ability. It's really not straight forward since intersex individuals and/or those with genetic or physiological advantages outside the norm for their sex will be advantaged in certain ways in athletic competition and likely become the best athletes for their gender - whether that's Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong or Khelif.

And no biological woman can fairly compete with Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, or Imane Khelif no matter how hard they train. Which is why women's sports should be separate.

So, are you suggesting that the many women and girls who have competed with Imane over the years — and WON these matches — should also be considered something other than biological women? After all, you’ve just said that “NO biological woman can fairly compete with…” her.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-13733607/amp/Imane-Khelif-gender-boxer-olympics-chromosomes.html

Man if Khalif is XY her lawsuit may not go very far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

The science is clear: XX/XY is immutable.

Beyond that, humans have a WIDE variety of physical attributes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.

Yeah, NO.

I think the objection is calling people with these "abnormalities" abnormal. Or a mistake. Or an error. It's mean. Unnecessary. And rude af. Would you call someone with other "abnormalities" resulting in physical or mental disabilities a mistake?

No. You wouldn't.

I wouldn’t be shocked if they do.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I do feel its complex to allow trans women into women's sports. But that's not the issue with Imane. A lot of people misunderstood what was going on and apologized once they realized they were wrong. Has Rowling apologized for mischaracterizing the situation? Has Musk?

What did Rowling get wrong? Be specific.

Troll.

Sounds like you can’t find anything incorrect about her statements. You just hate her because she supports women. Typical.

She supports bigots.

It's not even that. It's that she posted false information and sent online hoards after a woman athlete in the middle of a competition watched by the world. Probably the most stressful moments in the Khelif's life and there's billionaire strangers defaming her on social media and digitally bullying her.

It's worse than merely consorting with bigots. It's purposefully trying to harm a total stranger all for some ideological crusade.

She’s the queen of the bigot army sending out marching orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

The science is clear: XX/XY is immutable.

Beyond that, humans have a WIDE variety of physical attributes.

Well, except when there's a mutation: https://microbenotes.com/chromosomal-mutation/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.

Yeah, NO.

I think the objection is calling people with these "abnormalities" abnormal. Or a mistake. Or an error. It's mean. Unnecessary. And rude af. Would you call someone with other "abnormalities" resulting in physical or mental disabilities a mistake?

No. You wouldn't.

I wouldn’t be shocked if they do.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

You would tell parents of a child with Downs Syndrome that their kid is a mistake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I guess they should start testing for genetic mutations for athletic competition, and then exclude anyone with "abnormal" mutations (whatever that means) since it's not fair otherwise? I'd bet a very large share of olympic level athletes have some genetic mutations that favor them in competition.

I don’t think we need to go that far. Separate males and females, and then anything after that is fair game.

Intersex is sticky. That may need to be a separate category. With trans.

Why?

Because they don’t fit in neatly with make or female (I’m talking intersex). There’s nowhere else to put them. Trans should be with their biological sex but we all know what a sh¡t show that conversation is. So give them their own category and be done with it.

People with genetic mutations don't fit in well as humans. Should there be a separate category for anyone with a genetic mutation that assists them in competition?

I personally don’t think so.

Sex is a pretty straightforward way to separate 98% of the population. There is a reason why we separate males from females.

If you have another mutation that gives you an advantage within your sex category, more power to you.

I would agree with this.

Olympians are de facto the 0.01% outliers for their respective sex categories in terms of athletic ability. It's really not straight forward since intersex individuals and/or those with genetic or physiological advantages outside the norm for their sex will be advantaged in certain ways in athletic competition and likely become the best athletes for their gender - whether that's Michael Phelps or Lance Armstrong or Khelif.

And no biological woman can fairly compete with Michael Phelps, Lance Armstrong, or Imane Khelif no matter how hard they train. Which is why women's sports should be separate.

All available evidence is that Khelif is a biological woman. And she has in fact lost a number of times to biological women (although I guess we don't have their genetic test results either, so who knows?). How did that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, I do feel its complex to allow trans women into women's sports. But that's not the issue with Imane. A lot of people misunderstood what was going on and apologized once they realized they were wrong. Has Rowling apologized for mischaracterizing the situation? Has Musk?

What did Rowling get wrong? Be specific.

Troll.

Sounds like you can’t find anything incorrect about her statements. You just hate her because she supports women. Typical.

She supports bigots.

It's not even that. It's that she posted false information and sent online hoards after a woman athlete in the middle of a competition watched by the world. Probably the most stressful moments in the Khelif's life and there's billionaire strangers defaming her on social media and digitally bullying her.

It's worse than merely consorting with bigots. It's purposefully trying to harm a total stranger all for some ideological crusade.

Exactly. It was very cruel of her to that with no proof of anything. It turns out the International Boxing Federation (IBF) is a corrupt organization led by a Russian mafia guy who spread this information about Khelif because she was due to fight a Russian boxer. The IBF has yet to present the proof that Khelif failed any testing. See article below that explains this.

https://www.sportspolitika.news/p/imane-khelif-iba-russia-boxing-putin-olympics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely telling PP that they’re wrong. Sex is 100% binary. There is either male or female. Genetic mutations don’t make sex “non binary.”

XO chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XO chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XY chromosomes but with no penis and a female womb - male or female?
XY chromosomes with interior testicles - male or female?
XX chromosomes with vagina but no womb - male or female?
XX chromosomes with both ovarian and testicular tissue - male or female?

You said its binary, so you should easily be able to tell me the sex in each case that holds for every person born with each profile.

What type of gametes do they produce?

Most people in these categories are sterile.

This is a good point.

So let me see if I have the Rowling defenders position correctly summarized.

In order to participate in women's sports or use the women's restroom you must have all of the following:
-XX chromosomal profile (no deviations!)
-Female external and internal sex organs
-Female gametes
-Be fertile
-Typical female levels of estrogen, androgen, testosterone, etc.
-Secondary female sex characteristics

Am I missing anything? Who gets to do the inspections?

I think the point of this thread is that the IOC needs to establish clear scientific guidelines with regard to women’s sports. Obviously there should be arguments and consensus about where the line should be drawn. But once a decision is reached, it should be applied consistently and fairly for all female Olympic athletes. Otherwise, these controversies will never go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.

Yeah, NO.

I think the objection is calling people with these "abnormalities" abnormal. Or a mistake. Or an error. It's mean. Unnecessary. And rude af. Would you call someone with other "abnormalities" resulting in physical or mental disabilities a mistake?

No. You wouldn't.

I wouldn’t be shocked if they do.

Scientifically I absolutely do. Why does that shock you?

You would tell parents of a child with Downs Syndrome that their kid is a mistake?

Of course not. I’m doing it here. And I would anywhere else science was being discussed with other scientists.

Having a discussion in a lab, hospital or university (or online message board) about genetic mutations is different than speaking with a parent about their child. I thought that would go without saying.

You can rest easy now.

[Anonymous]

It’s not a lawsuit, it’s a criminal complaint to France’s Office of Online Bullying or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

The science is clear: XX/XY is immutable.

Beyond that, humans have a WIDE variety of physical attributes.

No. They are mutable, because they are capable of mutation. That's ... kind of the whole subthread here.

Are you unclear on what "mutable" means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely telling PP that they’re wrong. Sex is 100% binary. There is either male or female. Genetic mutations don’t make sex “non binary.”

XO chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XO chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with penis - male or female?
XXY chromosomes with vagina - male or female?
XY chromosomes but with no penis and a female womb - male or female?
XY chromosomes with interior testicles - male or female?
XX chromosomes with vagina but no womb - male or female?
XX chromosomes with both ovarian and testicular tissue - male or female?

You said its binary, so you should easily be able to tell me the sex in each case that holds for every person born with each profile.

What type of gametes do they produce?

Most people in these categories are sterile.

This is a good point.

So let me see if I have the Rowling defenders position correctly summarized.

In order to participate in women's sports or use the women's restroom you must have all of the following:
-XX chromosomal profile (no deviations!)
-Female external and internal sex organs
-Female gametes
-Be fertile
-Typical female levels of estrogen, androgen, testosterone, etc.
-Secondary female sex characteristics

Am I missing anything? Who gets to do the inspections?

I think the point of this thread is that the IOC needs to establish clear scientific guidelines with regard to women’s sports. Obviously there should be arguments and consensus about where the line should be drawn. But once a decision is reached, it should be applied consistently and fairly for all female Olympic athletes. Otherwise, these controversies will never go away.

But they use the scientific passport method, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A laboratory test seems like the easiest way to put this to rest.

If there are any “Y” chromosomes detected, the boxer is male. If not, the boxer is female. This is a binary outcome. One or the other. And then we’ll know the answer.


I trust science.

According to science, it is possible for females to have Y chromosomes. It is not binary.

Are you a scientist? Because you are misreading this. It is binary. The only time it isn’t is when there is a mutation.

It's binary, except when it's not binary. So it's not actually binary.

You can keep saying this, but that doesn’t make it true. It is binary. There are only two options. An error in transcription or translation is just that - an error.

So you are saying that someone is a man, a woman, or an “error”? First, that’s not binary (bi meaning two, and even if “error” were an okay think to say about a human being, it’s still a third option) . Second— WTF is wrong with you?

An intersex person is 100% an error of nature. I am a scientist. It is what it is. Doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be here, or don’t count. But they are literal errors. Sorry that hurts your feelings.

+1
It’s hilarious that all the “trust the science!” people are all about science UNTIL science says something that disagrees with their feelz.

Then it becomes “it’s complicated” or “no one can really say for certain”.


Yeah, NO.

The science is clear: XX/XY is immutable.

Beyond that, humans have a WIDE variety of physical attributes.

Well, except when there's a mutation: https://microbenotes.com/chromosomal-mutation/

I know, right? How nonsensical is this going to get?