SDSU Aztec wrote:
Armin Tamzarian wrote:
I never said either of those things.
1. She's not "choosing to compete against women." She is a woman. Women should run against women. It's crazy that you see that as controversial takes.
2. I never said she should compete against women because she can't compete against men. Someone suggested that she would be in the "changing room" with male athletes if she ran in the male division. I was pointing out that she, just like most males you mention, is not fast enough to run against males. But I am NOT saying that is why she should run against women,
She should run against women because she is a woman. That is the argument.
The IAAF made the case that she is biologically a male and won the argument. She was identified as female at birth and grew up believing she was female, but that did not make it fair for her to be allowed to compete against women without testosterone suppression.
the IAAF DID NOT say she is biologically a male. What was decided was that women (all women) must be under a certain testosterone level to compete in the womens 400-mile races. Which is absolutely outrageous? Imagine being a biological woman from birth with no question about your sex/gender then being told "oh your testosterone is too high to compete in these events". What would you say then?
Again, this is essentially saying "Bolt's body is naturally much bigger and stronger than mine, so that's an unfair biological advantage!"
The IAAF is essentially policing women's bodies but on an international athletics scale