JK Rowling's gender policing finally caught up to her

[Anonymous]

^^when they can't explain what they are talking about without waving their hands

--

It's just not scientific in any way, but they wrap themselves in some banner of SCIENCE!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are no truth to any of this, do posters believe Russia is targeting this boxer? Of all the boxers that submitted testing, they just picked this person to claim failed the test? To what end?

The sudden disqualification came three days after she beat a previously undefeated Russian boxer.

And that allowed them to continue to maintain that this boxer was “undefeated”.

[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: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 ..."

US Cycling rules for being female:

https://usacycling.org/about-us/governance/transgender-athletes-policy#:~:text=To%20be%20eligible%20to%20compete%20in%20the%20male%20category%20of,their%20gender%20identity%20is%20male.

US Swimming rules for being male or female:

https://www.usaswimming.org/news/2022/02/01/usa-swimming-releases-athlete-inclusion-competitive-equity-and-eligibility-policy

Etc.

[Anonymous]

Or we could just use chromosomes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there are no truth to any of this, do posters believe Russia is targeting this boxer? Of all the boxers that submitted testing, they just picked this person to claim failed the test? To what end?

The sudden disqualification came three days after she beat a previously undefeated Russian boxer.

And that allowed them to continue to maintain that this boxer was “undefeated”.

Then you do think that the boxer from Taiwan is male?

[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: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 ..."

US Cycling rules for being female:

https://usacycling.org/about-us/governance/transgender-athletes-policy#:~:text=To%20be%20eligible%20to%20compete%20in%20the%20male%20category%20of,their%20gender%20identity%20is%20male.

US Swimming rules for being male or female:

https://www.usaswimming.org/news/2022/02/01/usa-swimming-releases-athlete-inclusion-competitive-equity-and-eligibility-policy

Etc.

Yeah, you know, how odd that that doesn't seem "simple" at all. It's almost as if this is a complex question which is in the process of careful and negotiated regulations adapted to the current understanding, and which would be adapted further if new understanding became the norm.

Huh. Maybe it's more complex than just SCIENCE! jazzhands after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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?

I don’t know who that is and definitely don’t think we should go off of appearances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason we have separate mens and women's competitions is for a good reason, as a reminder. It is inclusive, giving more people a chance to win. Combining sexes and making sports open means fewer opportunities (for women) to win.

That means that the question of who is a woman needs to be addressed rather than merely hand waved away. And there are a number of people who do not want to address the question and write down an answer.

I totally agree that it needs to be addressed. It does not mean people can just shit on an individual based on visual.

I also imagine setting the standards will be difficult and complex, and somewhat arbitrary.

It would seem appropriate to require people participating in women’s sports to be XX, and exclude any XY variant.

They already test for doping. Testing for XY chromosomes is no different.

The irony if you go down this path is that it would likely knock out a lot of female athletes who present according to Western feminine gender norms. And it may very well be that Khelif is XY but has higher testosterone level.

And if you're going to do this, then you need to test all previous Olympic medal winners to see if their wins should be vacated. Right?

This is the can of worms you want to open. You need to really think through all the ramifications.

I see no reason to test all previous athletes. The rule would pertain moving forward.

A can of worms has to be opened. We cannot let males compete against females. Something needs to be done.

Repeat after me: Imane Khelif is a woman.

Can you do it? 5 simple words. Just say it.

Unless and until the results are released, we don’t have evidence of that. You know who can authorize release of the results? Imane Khelif.

How do you know Katie Ledecky is an XX chromosomal "woman"? Simone Biles? Gabby Thomas? Sam Coffey? Ilona Maher?

Do you have definitive "evidence" that they are not men? Did they release their test results to your satisfaction?

Oh you don't have that evidence.

Repeat after me: "Imane Khelif is a woman." Say it, derp.

Can someone please answer my question? How do we know these U.S. athletes are “real women?” Shouldn’t we be testing all of them for XX chromosomes?

JK Rowling would demand it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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?

I don’t know who that is and definitely don’t think we should go off of appearances.

She has a high testosterone level (especially compared to other women), but her body doesn't use testosterone, so the effect is just as if she had no testosterone at all. Thin fragile bones -- she's actually a runway model. She would properly compete with men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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?

I don’t know who that is and definitely don’t think we should go off of appearances.

She has a high testosterone level (especially compared to other women), but her body doesn't use testosterone, so the effect is just as if she had no testosterone at all. Thin fragile bones -- she's actually a runway model.

So Sweyer syndrome. She probably shouldn’t compete in boxing at all but definitely not against men as she doesn’t process testosterone.

[Anonymous]

It's interesting how conservative want to set biology in stone.
Some will legislate based on "sex assigned at birth."
My only child was born in 1989. US was not as widely used then, I had a few done mainly because I participated in a state prenatal care pilot program for low income women. Nobody ever showed me a picture, let alone give me a copy. Ob-Gyn was not connected with that program directly and never mentioned US at all I did have an amnio done because I was 35 at delivery. Decided at 8 months to not have baby's sex be a surprise, and it was a boy, although an arrogant OB who filled in for my doc claimed he knew absolutely it was a girl.

Point being--how often is it visually determined as opposed to by chromosomes? More often than not? Anyway, that gives you a "sex assigned at birth."

Which, whoopsie, might not match the chromosomes. Which could involve an extra chromosome or two BUT could be XX or XY yet NOT match the visually assigned sex.

Regardless, which ever standard they pick will contradict the other in a small percentage of births. And, yes, it's a small percentage, BUT why do they ignore that completely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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?

I don’t know who that is and definitely don’t think we should go off of appearances.

She has a high testosterone level (especially compared to other women), but her body doesn't use testosterone, so the effect is just as if she had no testosterone at all. Thin fragile bones -- she's actually a runway model.

So Sweyer syndrome. She probably shouldn’t compete in boxing at all but definitely not against men as she doesn’t process testosterone.

And she is outspoken about her medical diagnosis. Which she learned, I forget when, but maybe in her 20s and definitely no earlier than 15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's interesting how conservative want to set biology in stone.
Some will legislate based on "sex assigned at birth."
My only child was born in 1989. US was not as widely used then, I had a few done mainly because I participated in a state prenatal care pilot program for low income women. Nobody ever showed me a picture, let alone give me a copy. Ob-Gyn was not connected with that program directly and never mentioned US at all I did have an amnio done because I was 35 at delivery. Decided at 8 months to not have baby's sex be a surprise, and it was a boy, although an arrogant OB who filled in for my doc claimed he knew absolutely it was a girl.

Point being--how often is it visually determined as opposed to by chromosomes? More often than not? Anyway, that gives you a "sex assigned at birth."

Which, whoopsie, might not match the chromosomes. Which could involve an extra chromosome or two BUT could be XX or XY yet NOT match the visually assigned sex.

Regardless, which ever standard they pick will contradict the other in a small percentage of births. And, yes, it's a small percentage, BUT why do they ignore that completely?

DP. Intersex is an issue that has come up before. Nowadays trans is a more current issue but the answer should be the same, for sports with categories for sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or we could just use chromosomes?

I refer you again to this question, with a picture of the woman who has decided to be a vocal advocate for herself and others in media:

----

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?

I don’t know who that is and definitely don’t think we should go off of appearances.

She has a high testosterone level (especially compared to other women), but her body doesn't use testosterone, so the effect is just as if she had no testosterone at all. Thin fragile bones -- she's actually a runway model.

So Sweyer syndrome. She probably shouldn’t compete in boxing at all but definitely not against men as she doesn’t process testosterone.

Nope.

It's almost as if this isn't as simple as people think it is. Odd, huh?