Guardian: World Athletics Proposes Stricter T Limits for XY DSD & XY Trans Athletes in Women's Competition

sumner is the real massive talent. he had a great senior season but a lot got in the way. if he was truly chasing the hsr like flatt was he would have run 1:45. sumner will run 1:44 this year and will be under 1:43 at some point in his career.

Wow, a warped response to my post. You missed my point completely.

You have argued that XY DSD athletes have no biological disadvantage with respect to athletics as compared to XY non DSD men, have you not? This is your argument for having them compete with males regardless of the medical details or level of competition. You believe that Semenya or Niyonsaba have all the same biological advantages as any other XY male athlete. Yes? I’m simply pointing out that the very best XY DSD athletes in history do not remotely approach the ability of the best XY non DSD men. Why not? Is this just because there are not enough DSD athletes for a truly elite runner to emerge? Maybe. However, I estimate that there are many hundreds of thousands of XY DSD people worldwide. Nobody from this group has ever run faster than 1:54 in the 800. Niyonsaba is almost 2 minutes slower than Cheptegei. This doesn’t seem strange to you this is the best XY DSD athletes can muster? We have two boys at our HS of 300 boys that can run 1:55 right now. Maybe this is because XY DSD athletes have biological features not fully explained by their T levels that render them disadvantaged to XY non DSD men with respect to athletic performance? Obviously Chand has nowhere near the biological advantages of an XY non DSD man as it pertains to sprinting. If she has PAIS, this is by definition.

Also, you have never answered my question. Do you agree that 46 XY CAIS athletes should be competing with XX women? If not, why not?

Yikety yikes! OP cites hose numbers as if the sky is falling and the likes of Chand with their ginormous T’s must clearly be performing like elite men and cleaning up golds at global events. It’s almost as if OP’s data has no relevance to any position and is neither here nor there. Almost as if T levels beyond a point don’t matter. Almost as if there might be an S-shaped response curve.

Fairness is a social construct. Empiricism is well intentioned but statistical models can at best yield probabilities for where on the “potential ability” distribution a 1:54 800 lies based on the estimated XY DSD population size.

Fairness starts with an overarching modern world principle that is also reflected in WA, IOC, as well as FINA’s recent documents: never question a woman’s claimed womanly identity, ruling out anything resembling sex verification. What the bodies are comfortable with is defining “eligibility criteria” to compete in women’s events, criteria that are reasonably within control of individual women. On that front, it is my view that FINA jumped the gun by declaring that a woman could permanently lose the ability to compete as a woman simply by growing up naturally. WA hasn’t yet and appears to be targeting determinative eligibility criteria that are within the athlete’s control. I suppose you could say FINA and WA are both being “empiricist” in being driven by the most pressing “problem cases” at hand today.

Wise, you must know by now that the Transphobic Bully belloweth like the trumpet of a pachyderm on psilocybin. Just as you start thinking you are engaged in a two-way exchange, it will wildly distort your words and thwack you hard with an irrelevant uneducational lecture series in sexual biology.

It gets writing practice on these boards and is apparently writing a book, Chapter 1 of which I hear starts by asking “What is a woman” and then spends the next 7000 pages reprimanding the reader for being a male chauvinist bigot for thinking about that question.

??? what is your point, that fairness should not be strived for?

The females "growing up naturally" that you are referring to are biological males who later transition. And that the needs of these biological males trump the needs of biological females.

This is prioritizing inclusivity of males over females. And denying reality, frankly. What about the biological females, women and girls?

That's misogyny. Just own it.

Seriously? You carefully edit out just the portion of my post stating the overarching point and then ask what the point is? Do this: go back and reinsert what you removed from my post, don’t be afraid to face it, rather acknowledge it and feel free to agree or disagree. Identifying points of disagreement doesn’t need many words and certainly not name calling.