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: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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

[Anonymous]

PS: "You know what I mean, they kinda look like a guy" would be unscientific.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

See 16:58.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

Dp, but I think XY chromosomes should exclude someone from participating in women’s sports.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

Dp, but chromosomal testing, please!

[Anonymous]

Jinx, 17:10!

- 17:11

[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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

So for you it's about the discrete testosterone level, not the effects -- say, a petite XX woman with high testosterone but a fragile frame would have to compete against XY men who outweighed her by 200 pounds, or a 300 pound man with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but a low testosterone level would compete in the women's bracket? Like that?

[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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

Dp, but I think XY chromosomes should exclude someone from participating in women’s sports.

Of course 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.

Have you seen Imane Khelif’s testing results? No, you haven’t because the IBF has refused to release the test results. Why? Because it’s a corrupt, Putin-associated Russian mafia organization that is spreading false information about Khelif. Y’all need to educate yourselves before spreading more false information.

The problem is we don’t know if it’s true or false. You’re assuming it’s false. Many others have assumed it’s true. Assumptions are the problem. They are not evidence.

[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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

Dp, but I think XY chromosomes should exclude someone from participating in women’s sports.

She would compete as a man in the Olympics? Even if you could inject her with all the testosterone in the world , and it would have no effect on her body?

[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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

So for you it's about the discrete testosterone level, not the effects -- say, a petite XX woman with high testosterone but a fragile frame would have to compete against XY men who outweighed her by 200 pounds, or a 300 pound man with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but a low testosterone level would compete in the women's bracket? Like that?

So you're willing to observe differences in sex (XX and XY and various syndromes) and in size (weight classes) for athletes - but you're not willing to enforce them. Other than being argumentative, I'm not sure what your purpose is.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

So for you it's about the discrete testosterone level, not the effects -- say, a petite XX woman with high testosterone but a fragile frame would have to compete against XY men who outweighed her by 200 pounds, or a 300 pound man with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but a low testosterone level would compete in the women's bracket? Like that?

So you're willing to observe differences in sex (XX and XY and various syndromes) and in size (weight classes) for athletes - but you're not willing to enforce them. Other than being argumentative, I'm not sure what your purpose is.

No, I'm just asking -- is it about the testosterone level, or about some perceived/anticipated effect of testosterone?

I have it on good authority that this stuff is all pretty straightforward, so it can't be a hard question to answer.

[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.

So people with mutations can’t be athletes?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

So for you it's about the discrete testosterone level, not the effects -- say, a petite XX woman with high testosterone but a fragile frame would have to compete against XY men who outweighed her by 200 pounds, or a 300 pound man with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but a low testosterone level would compete in the women's bracket? Like that?

So you're willing to observe differences in sex (XX and XY and various syndromes) and in size (weight classes) for athletes - but you're not willing to enforce them. Other than being argumentative, I'm not sure what your purpose is.

No, I'm just asking -- is it about the testosterone level, or about some perceived/anticipated effect of testosterone?

I have it on good authority that this stuff is all pretty straightforward, so it can't be a hard question to answer.

"I'm just asking questions."

Plenty of other sports authorities have already answered these questions. Maybe you agree with their answer, maybe you disagree. But these actually aren't new questions and, if either of these boxers are intersex, it is not the first time that athletes have been intersex.

[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: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?

Let's think about this... the sport is boxing. Someone with a mutation that puts them physically on the "male" side should probably box with males, no? Or, let's just get rid of gendered sports all together and have everyone duke it out, regardless of anatomy?

What does this mean?

As someone else put it upthread, sex is bimodal. While there are two usual sexes, sometimes there are variations. But they tend to present as either mostly male or mostly female. An intersex person with high (usable) testosterone is mostly male, regardless of genitalia. And vice versa.

Okay, that's a lot of handwaving. What exactly are the criteria you want to look at someone and use to judge if they are "physically on the male side?" -- straight jaw, heavy brow, what?

... testosterone (plus maybe a few other tests for those rare cases where the body cannot use testosterone)

So for you it's about the discrete testosterone level, not the effects -- say, a petite XX woman with high testosterone but a fragile frame would have to compete against XY men who outweighed her by 200 pounds, or a 300 pound man with Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome but a low testosterone level would compete in the women's bracket? Like that?

So you're willing to observe differences in sex (XX and XY and various syndromes) and in size (weight classes) for athletes - but you're not willing to enforce them. Other than being argumentative, I'm not sure what your purpose is.

No, I'm just asking -- is it about the testosterone level, or about some perceived/anticipated effect of testosterone?

I have it on good authority that this stuff is all pretty straightforward, so it can't be a hard question to answer.

"I'm just asking questions."

Plenty of other sports authorities have already answered these questions. Maybe you agree with their answer, maybe you disagree. But these actually aren't new questions and, if either of these boxers are intersex, it is not the first time that athletes have been intersex.

Well, I am just asking.

If you want my personal opinion, it's that this is more complex than over 95% of people realize, and that the half-thought-out criteria they posit (being put "physically on the "male" side, for example) don't capture what they think they do and are so poorly defined as to be almost meaningless, when you pin them down.

Which, of course, you can see when tyhey can't explain what they are talking about without wavign their hands in a "you knoooowww ..."