But why can't you see that only 'idiot rednecks' would think women don't have d*cks and b*lls? 'Educated intellectuals' are perfectly able to understand that some women have low hangers swinging free. Please educate yourself, the hate is so ignorant.
I find it interesting that in the stories about the TUE, Calamia goes by “he” despite going by ‘they’ seemingly every other time. “When the San Francisco Marathon included a nonbinary division for the first time this July, Calamia, who identifies as trans and nonbinary and uses he and they pronouns, jumped at the chance, even if they weren’t in peak marathon shape. They became the race’s first winner in the nonbinary division with a time of 3 hours.”
Um. Anyone that knows anything knows that an anthropologist's opinion on testosterone is NOT FACT, as they are not an educated scientist, physician, biologist, or any sort of expert, and is just another personally biased opinion just like everyone else's.
Maybe. But the NPR broadcast also appealed to other researchers: "... what she and other researchers in the field told me ..."
I was trying to respond to your most recent post, but the quote function doesn't work.
I think the gender controversy is about transhumanness, which is a bigger issue than gender. We're seeing people modify their bodies with drugs and surgeries in order to self actualize, and now TUEs are being granted in these situations on the grounds that the person has a medical reason for taking the banned substance. All TUEs have the potential to undermine the integrity of sports, unless the person is taking a masking agent for medical reasons and/or the drug has no performance benefit for their particular sport.
Adding gender categories that allow otherwise banned substances to be taken in the name of self-actualization definitely undermines any competition centered around natural human talent. If this continues, we will probably need additional categories to differentiate between more or less natural human bodies and augmented, trans-human bodies.
I find it interesting that in the stories about the TUE, Calamia goes by “he” despite going by ‘they’ seemingly every other time. “When the San Francisco Marathon included a nonbinary division for the first time this July, Calamia, who identifies as trans and nonbinary and uses he and they pronouns, jumped at the chance, even if they weren’t in peak marathon shape. They became the race’s first winner in the nonbinary division with a time of 3 hours.”
Ok. But, NYC marathon is the perfect example- everyone running in the nonbinary category is actually a man anyway, whether born or hormone-augmented, so what is this category actually doing except providing feel-good optics of being inclusive? It's certainly not helping actual females.
they are a man to you. not to themselves. you don't get it. it's not "feel-good" to a trans kid who presents as a girl. it's their existence. whether you like it or not.
I was trying to respond to your most recent post, but the quote function doesn't work.
I think the gender controversy is about transhumanness, which is a bigger issue than gender. We're seeing people modify their bodies with drugs and surgeries in order to self actualize, and now TUEs are being granted in these situations on the grounds that the person has a medical reason for taking the banned substance. All TUEs have the potential to undermine the integrity of sports, unless the person is taking a masking agent for medical reasons and/or the drug has no performance benefit for their particular sport.
Adding gender categories that allow otherwise banned substances to be taken in the name of self-actualization definitely undermines any competition centered around natural human talent. If this continues, we will probably need additional categories to differentiate between more or less natural human bodies and augmented, trans-human bodies.
I'm not going to pretend I know all the answers here, but in the case of Cal, a biological women who takes WADA banned medication to become more masculine as part of gender affirming care, I think allowing "him" to boost testosterone to the lower end of the male spectrum, in a controlled way, and allowing "him" to compete in male or non-binary categories is not going to undermine competition in the women's or men's category. It might be unfair for other forms of non-binary competitors, e.g. who don't take testosterone.
From a sports perspective, it seems the biggest priority is not letting men or women, with either a natural or artificial elevated testosterone advantage, compete in the women's division. So this would exclude Cal, but also runners like Caster Semenya who were "born this way".
From a human rights perspective, everyone should be free to be who they want to be, and decide their own medical options, but I don't believe that participation in sports is a human right.
Have you ever been to a track or XC meet where the best distance female's time in any event would have been inside the top 20 times in the corresponding male race? I haven't, and that's my evidence
USADA's approach seems to be protecting the integrity of the nonbinary division. What's to prevent someone from gaming the system and competing in the division for some relatively easy money? There are no reports of it happening yet, but it's definitely not inconceivable that it will start happening if rules are lax.
This is new territory for everyone. It's going to be messy and imperfect at first, but at least athletes get to compete in a category in which they feel comfortable. I know of one person in my local area who registered as non-binary — who is most likely not — to prove some sort of cis-bro point. That person no longer registers as non-binary so I think it probably backfired on them. Honestly, if it doesn't affect you, then why the outrage?
As long as half the prize money continues to be reserved for XX athletes, I think nonbinary divisions are great. The nonbinary will be won by an XY athlete for any large event, so perhaps the men should get 25%, the nonbinaries 25% and the women 25%.
It shouldn't take competitive male athletes long to figure out how to cash on.
This is obviously not a fair approach, though, since the losers are Africans, the powers that be will not care.
On the flip side, if nonbinary prize money is allocated based on the percent of elite XY athletes who identify as nonbinary - currently 0 as far as I know - then it's all good. If at some future point, 1% or 2% or 5% of elite XY athletes begin to identify as nonbinary, prize money can be allocated accordingly.
I find it interesting that in the stories about the TUE, Calamia goes by “he” despite going by ‘they’ seemingly every other time. “When the San Francisco Marathon included a nonbinary division for the first time this July, Calamia, who identifies as trans and nonbinary and uses he and they pronouns, jumped at the chance, even if they weren’t in peak marathon shape. They became the race’s first winner in the nonbinary division with a time of 3 hours.”
How can they win? A tie?
Singular they has been around forever, and you probably use it regularly.
- Somebody called me, but they didn't leave a voicemail.
- Anyone who shows up can race, as long as they pay the entry fee.
- Can you be believe that jerk who just cut me off? I bet they were looking at their cell phone.
- I didn't see who won the race, but they must have been pretty fast.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
punctuation
Singular they has been around forever, and you probably use it regularly.
- Somebody called me, but they didn't leave a voicemail.
- Anyone who shows up can race, as long as they pay the entry fee.
- Can you be believe that jerk who just cut me off? I bet they were looking at their cell phone.
- I didn't see who won the race, but they must have been pretty fast.
You're correct but in those examples "they" is used because it's unknown if the person who made the call, cut you off, might enter the race, etc. is male or female. When you're referring to a living thing that has no sex "it" is the word used. Despite someone once having a mule named Sal, a mule is properly called "it." The problem with using "they" to describe only one person is that the listener can't tell if the speaker is referring to one person or more. My wife has a cousin whose son has decided to be a they. This cousin was telling me about the son liking an apartment the son had just moved into by saying how much they liked the new place. From that I can't tell if the son has roommates or not. If we're going to have people who don't want to be referred to by the third party pronouns we've always used and don't like being called "it" there needs to be a new third party pronoun for that population.
Ok. But, NYC marathon is the perfect example- everyone running in the nonbinary category is actually a man anyway, whether born or hormone-augmented, so what is this category actually doing except providing feel-good optics of being inclusive? It's certainly not helping actual females.
they are a man to you. not to themselves. you don't get it. it's not "feel-good" to a trans kid who presents as a girl. it's their existence. whether you like it or not.
I was referring to the non binary category for adults at NYRR races, actually, not really trans kids.
And if you pay attention to such things, it seems that everyone that registers in the non-binary category at NYRR races is an actual man that presents as a man. Not a man presenting as a woman, not a woman presenting as a man, just men. Winning prize money.
It seems that Cal could register as a male if they wanted, most people just have an issue with men presenting as female running in the female category, and the unfair advantage they have.
i see the anti trans folks sprinting right past the part where there is a nonbinary division.
Not at all. We question why there even needs to be a nonbinary division. There is no such thing as a nonbinary person to begin with (just another trendy delusion) but even if you decide you can declare yourself non-gendered or in-between genders, sports are divided on sex, not gender. So the nonbinary division is even stupider than it would be to have- seaprate trans divisions alongside the "cis" divisions. It is literally meaningless except that it validates trendy people who have chosen to claim not to have a gender. You don't even need to have an opinion on the validity or invalidity of nonbinary identity to recognize that nonbinary sports divisions are meaningless and stupid.