JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

You literally cannot prove anything you just wrote. Khelif is a biological female, per her own words and her country's assertions. She's even lost boxing matches to other women! You would - maybe - have a point if she was undefeated.

There is a daily mail article that says otherwise. It’s looking like she may be XY. Unless you mean that her just saying it makes it so.

“Daily Mail”? Ah! That well respected science journal! /s

[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:

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.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Right. Because “ Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.
Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know” isn’t dickish. At all.

Different people, PP.

You see, the "Anonymous" tag isn't just one person. You could be conversing with 2, or 3, or even 20 people.

Then you identify yourself as a DP. So I know who I’m responding to.

Hey, we're just dealing with facts. Do we have to protect your feelings by making sure you don't misread the situation? Why is that?

Oh this is rich. I’m not the one who needs my “feelings” protected.

[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:

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.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Yep. That comes with having facts on my side.

For this to be a brag, you have to actually know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just called being a dick.

Oh I am. You know, having a science degree and all. I know very well. Clearly more than the progressives on this thread.

What's your degree? I have an MD and a PhD. This is my bread and butter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

You literally cannot prove anything you just wrote. Khelif is a biological female, per her own words and her country's assertions. She's even lost boxing matches to other women! You would - maybe - have a point if she was undefeated.

There is a daily mail article that says otherwise. It’s looking like she may be XY. Unless you mean that her just saying it makes it so.

So what happens if she's XY but has female genitalia and natural secondary characteristics (eg, breasts, hips, etc)?

What will you people do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

You literally cannot prove anything you just wrote. Khelif is a biological female, per her own words and her country's assertions. She's even lost boxing matches to other women! You would - maybe - have a point if she was undefeated.

There is a daily mail article that says otherwise. It’s looking like she may be XY. Unless you mean that her just saying it makes it so.

“Daily Mail”? Ah! That well respected science journal! /s

Until Khalif releases the results of her karyotype her sex is anyone’s guess.

[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:

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.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Right. Because “ Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.
Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know” isn’t dickish. At all.

Different people, PP.

You see, the "Anonymous" tag isn't just one person. You could be conversing with 2, or 3, or even 20 people.

Then you identify yourself as a DP. So I know who I’m responding to.

Hey, we're just dealing with facts. Do we have to protect your feelings by making sure you don't misread the situation? Why is that?

Oh this is rich. I’m not the one who needs my “feelings” protected.

Or you could, you know, understand what "Anonymous" means without anyone holding your hand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

Re: Khelif, we don't know anything.

Re: Semenya--how does higher testosterone give her a bigger advantage than other characteristics? Take height--being shorter is an advantage in women's gymnastics. The average height is 5'1". But women in general...5'4".

There only about 2800 ppl in the world over 7' tall, and 40 of them are in the NBA? Is that fair to the vast majority of players who are not in that 0.000038% and can never be?

Should men with very low testosterone participate in women's sports?

We are getting too deep in the weeds because there is no level playing field. Most of these elite athletes are elite because they have super uncommon characteristics. Michael Phelps foot size and lung capacity. Venus and Serena's extreme musculature. Joel Embiid's height.

SO what is the purpose of all this level testing of hormones?

[Anonymous]

She will be fine. She's used to having frivolous lawsuits.
If you're a woman op, you should be grateful for her work

[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:

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.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Yep. That comes with having facts on my side.

For this to be a brag, you have to actually know what you are talking about. Otherwise it's just called being a dick.

Oh I am. You know, having a science degree and all. I know very well. Clearly more than the progressives on this thread.

What's your degree? I have an MD and a PhD. This is my bread and butter.

If you have an MD and a PhD and you think that sex is not binary then something went wrong somewhere. You are most certainly on the fringe with this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

Where is your citation for Khalif being intersex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

Re: Khelif, we don't know anything.

Re: Semenya--how does higher testosterone give her a bigger advantage than other characteristics? Take height--being shorter is an advantage in women's gymnastics. The average height is 5'1". But women in general...5'4".

There only about 2800 ppl in the world over 7' tall, and 40 of them are in the NBA? Is that fair to the vast majority of players who are not in that 0.000038% and can never be?

Should men with very low testosterone participate in women's sports?

We are getting too deep in the weeds because there is no level playing field. Most of these elite athletes are elite because they have super uncommon characteristics. Michael Phelps foot size and lung capacity. Venus and Serena's extreme musculature. Joel Embiid's height.

SO what is the purpose of all this level testing of hormones?

I think you’re not up to date with Semenya. Caster has testicles which produce testosterone. How is that a female attribute? Caster has also fathered children with his sperm. And it’s very, very likely that Imane has the same DSD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know intersex people aren’t actually rare right? It’s the same percentage as redheads. You definitely know some intersex people even if you haven’t examined their genitals.

This is fake news.

[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:

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.

There are parents on here with children with Downs Syndrome. It’s a parenting forum, not medical.

Again, not shocked at all that bigots don’t mind being a dick.

I’m a scientist, not a bigot.

I care more about facts than feelings.

Always have, always will.

Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.

Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know.

Believe me what I’ve forgotten about science you’ll never know.

And you’ll always be a dick. Proudly, it seems.

Right. Because “ Ooohhh, someone's social challenges slip is showing.
Wouldn't be so sad if you were actually good at science, but, you know” isn’t dickish. At all.

Different people, PP.

You see, the "Anonymous" tag isn't just one person. You could be conversing with 2, or 3, or even 20 people.

Then you identify yourself as a DP. So I know who I’m responding to.

Hey, we're just dealing with facts. Do we have to protect your feelings by making sure you don't misread the situation? Why is that?

Oh this is rich. I’m not the one who needs my “feelings” protected.

Or you could, you know, understand what "Anonymous" means without anyone holding your hand.

I know what anonymous means. No hand holding necessary. But when there is a thread within a thread, people usually identify that they are a DP so the poster knows who they are responding to.
You don’t have to do that, but it sure makes life easier if you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

Re: Khelif, we don't know anything.

Re: Semenya--how does higher testosterone give her a bigger advantage than other characteristics? Take height--being shorter is an advantage in women's gymnastics. The average height is 5'1". But women in general...5'4".

There only about 2800 ppl in the world over 7' tall, and 40 of them are in the NBA? Is that fair to the vast majority of players who are not in that 0.000038% and can never be?

Should men with very low testosterone participate in women's sports?

We are getting too deep in the weeds because there is no level playing field. Most of these elite athletes are elite because they have super uncommon characteristics. Michael Phelps foot size and lung capacity. Venus and Serena's extreme musculature. Joel Embiid's height.

SO what is the purpose of all this level testing of hormones?

To gatekeep who gets to be a "woman" and punish those who do not conform to societal norms. Fin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand how any of this is an issue. There are a tiny percentage of human beings that are born intersex. Which, fine. All accommodations should be made. But - scientifically - men are stronger, faster, have more endurance etc. Sure, Sydney McLauglin is going to beat your grandpa at anything. But she is not beating the times of the best male athletes. Intersex athletes like Caster Semenya and Imane Khalif have an unfair advantage. We all know that. They should compete with the men.

And running is one thing. But using that testosterone advantage for boxing? I mean, c'mon. Not remotely fair. It is abusive.

Re: Khelif, we don't know anything.

Re: Semenya--how does higher testosterone give her a bigger advantage than other characteristics? Take height--being shorter is an advantage in women's gymnastics. The average height is 5'1". But women in general...5'4".

There only about 2800 ppl in the world over 7' tall, and 40 of them are in the NBA? Is that fair to the vast majority of players who are not in that 0.000038% and can never be?

Should men with very low testosterone participate in women's sports?

We are getting too deep in the weeds because there is no level playing field. Most of these elite athletes are elite because they have super uncommon characteristics. Michael Phelps foot size and lung capacity. Venus and Serena's extreme musculature. Joel Embiid's height.

SO what is the purpose of all this level testing of hormones?

Then why did we ever separate men’s and women’s sports?