"Testosterone is the key determinant in performance."
If this is true, then transgender athletes whose hormone levels are in the female range should be allowed to compete. Especially if they took puberty blockers as a child and never went through male puberty.
The key is not just the current testosterone level, but the cumulative effects of testosterone since puberty. Once a person goes through male puberty, the effects cannot be entirely reversed by any medical intervention currently available.
That's why the new FINA rules requires that a trans person starts hormon suppression before the onset of puberty (Tanner stage 2) to be eligible in the women's division.
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, but I don’t think WA will actually go FINA’s way or be able to sustain that position (notwithstanding Coe’s chirps). They can impose eligibility requirements on current testosterone or other determinative and changeable current attributes, but to say that something in the past permanently denies one an opportunity to participate in women’s sport would be fundamentally at odds with embracing without question a trans woman’s gender identity as a woman, a position reflected in WA’s rule books for quite some time now and very unlikely to go backward.
Such a move would also induce a collateral cost of pressuring pre-puberty trans kids with promise of sporting talent to rush to make the decision of hormone suppression when they and their parents might just not be ready to make that decision or permanently forgo the promise of a sporting career.
I’ve said from the beginning, just follow the already in place doping measures. If your testosterone is too high, you’re banned, it’s irrelevant why. It can be from natural production or supplements. Doesn’t matter. The limits are the limits. Sure, does that mean a few women can’t compete? Yes, but that’s the way it goes. Life isn’t always fair. We’re making this way more difficult and complicated than it should be.
I’ve said from the beginning, just follow the already in place doping measures. If your testosterone is too high, you’re banned, it’s irrelevant why. It can be from natural production or supplements. Doesn’t matter. The limits are the limits. Sure, does that mean a few women can’t compete? Yes, but that’s the way it goes. Life isn’t always fair. We’re making this way more difficult and complicated than it should be.
The current WA rules don’t have any limits for testosterone in cis women, only for trans and intersex, so cis women can claim a “natural gift” if they happen to have high endogenous T. I don’t think any camp is particularly lobbying for that aspect to change.
I’ve said from the beginning, just follow the already in place doping measures. If your testosterone is too high, you’re banned, it’s irrelevant why. It can be from natural production or supplements. Doesn’t matter. The limits are the limits. Sure, does that mean a few women can’t compete? Yes, but that’s the way it goes. Life isn’t always fair. We’re making this way more difficult and complicated than it should be.
The current WA rules don’t have any limits for testosterone in cis women, only for trans and intersex, so cis women can claim a “natural gift” if they happen to have high endogenous T. I don’t think any camp is particularly lobbying for that aspect to change.
Women cannot have natural testosterone levels higher than the WA limits of 5nml without doping, being seriously ill - or being male.
"to say that something in the past permanently denies one an opportunity to participate in women’s sport would be fundamentally at odds with embracing without question a trans woman’s gender identity as a woman"(quote)
That is precisely the issue. As far as many sporting bodies now see it, fairness trumps identity.
If the money and the demand to watch intersex athletes is there, then someone should create a separate league. But to say they "need" to be allowed to compete somewhere is bizarre. Competing in sports is not a god given right that someone "needs."
It is discriminatory to exclude someone from competition because of who they are. Everyone has a human right to participate, or your league should be sued. Many of them do not belong in men's sports either, so creating an "open" category is just as discriminatory.
You're goddamn right it's discriminatory, and being discriminatory is not inherently a bad thing. Not letting adults attend preschool is also discrimination based on who they are, are you going to argue that that's wrong? There are times when it's appropriate to discriminate, and not letting MEN compete in WOMENS' events is one of those times.
What makes a man a man and a woman a woman is not ambiguous, fluid or arbitrary - at least it shouldn't seem that way when you understand (or are not willfully ignorant of in favor of gender ideology) what "sex" is and the function of sexual characteristics.
Then why is it so hard for you to say what makes "a female a female" rather than what makes "a woman a woman"? This issue would be so much easier if everyone could at least admit that gender is culturally specific with social expectations, while sex is a biological distinction. What it means to be a young woman in China is different than what it means to be a young woman in Saudi Arabia, or Colorado, or Namibia, or France, etc., etc. What fool would deny this?
For better or for worse, the two categories for sport are gender categories, not sex categories. If Seb and everyone else wants to change it to sex categories, he should say so.
TL;DR When talking about gender, use terms like "men" and "women"; when talking about sex, use terms like "male" and "female".
2) This point demonstrates that you think that trans women are men. The idea that the existence of trans women is misogynistic and erases cis women is one of the oldest transphobic arguments in the book. We could have a debate about this point, but you can't simply take that as a given and a starting point in your counter-argument.
Your social constructivist view that all a woman is is someone who says they're a woman, dresses and wears their hair like a woman, regardless of physical characteristics is inherently misogynistic. I know to the intersectional sjw's like you, it's more socially acceptable to be misogynistic than transphobic since trans people are the victim-flavor of the month, but your gender ideology is inherently offensive and dehumanizing.
Trans women are not women, they are men who think they are women. Everybody knows it, so you don't have to continue on with the charade. Neither are intersex males. Women should not have to lose opportunities in order to affirm someone else's delusions. Nobody should. Intersex
He meant sex/gender. 90% of people use the terms interchangeably.
But that is the same as denying trans people their identity, irrespective of your opinion on the nature of their participation in sport.
I think I am going to identify as a chihuahua and if someone is upset, I will sue over discrimination and gain entry into the best dog shows ever. I am so tired of this. We have become so confused and weak in our character that people can’t even figure out what gender or sex they are? Wow. Just wow.
But that is the same as denying trans people their identity, irrespective of your opinion on the nature of their participation in sport.
I think I am going to identify as a chihuahua and if someone is upset, I will sue over discrimination and gain entry into the best dog shows ever. I am so tired of this. We have become so confused and weak in our character that people can’t even figure out what gender or sex they are? Wow. Just wow.
You are so stupid that you entirely miss the point. Epic fail at being funny too.
I'm not sure when Coe made these comments - might have been yesterday - but he deserves A LOT of praise for standing firm on this. Some of these quotes are amazing.
“We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender. Age because we think it’s better that Olympic champions don’t run against 14-year-olds in community sports. And gender because if you don’t have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event.
“We’ve always been guided by the science, and the science is pretty clear: we know that testosterone is the key determinant in performance. I’m really over having any more of these discussions with second-rate sociologists who sit there trying to tell me or the science community that there may be some issue. There isn’t. Testosterone is the key determinant in performance.”
Current testosterone levels don’t present the complete picture. WA’s own commissioned studies couldn’t confirm testosterone as a performance determinant in some track events unlike others. The “science” could change, but it is where it is at this point.
RunRagged, what do you think the answer is to all of this? In simple term - what tests/cut-offs and rules that WA could set? I know there are hundreds of intersex conditions so it is difficult, but I don't think athletics could have (or needs) hundreds of rules on this. There must be a few main things that cover 99.99% of it? E.g. testosterone, SRY, XX or XY, something else? Thanks.
A woman is an adult human female just like a man is an adult human male. That's how people all around the world define and view the words woman and man. The fact that women in Saudi have to veil when outside the home and wear full-body coverings at the beach whilst women in France aren't allowed to veil in some jobs and have been told by police they can't wear burkinis at the beach in the south of France - all that is a different matter. Women in Saudi and in France are both adult human females. A woman in Afghanistan in a burka is a woman because of her biology, just as a woman in America in a bikini is. What makes a woman a woman rather than a man does not change because cultural norms do.
As an aside I actually think this is really sh!t. It could stop some women from accessing the beach or swimming, or they could try to swim in clothes (as happens a lot in Australia) and it could contribute to drowning.
What makes a man a man and a woman a woman is not ambiguous, fluid or arbitrary - at least it shouldn't seem that way when you understand (or are not willfully ignorant of in favor of gender ideology) what "sex" is and the function of sexual characteristics.
Then why is it so hard for you to say what makes "a female a female" rather than what makes "a woman a woman"? This issue would be so much easier if everyone could at least admit that gender is culturally specific with social expectations, while sex is a biological distinction. What it means to be a young woman in China is different than what it means to be a young woman in Saudi Arabia, or Colorado, or Namibia, or France, etc., etc. What fool would deny this?
For better or for worse, the two categories for sport are gender categories, not sex categories. If Seb and everyone else wants to change it to sex categories, he should say so.
TL;DR When talking about gender, use terms like "men" and "women"; when talking about sex, use terms like "male" and "female".
You're begging the question. Many people disagree with your assertion that woman and man are social categories while male and female are sex categories. Though your distinction between the two sets of terms is common in fields like sociology (and useful for parsing the biological from the social in writing), it is not accepted as uncontroversial, even in academia.
I see several issues here:
1. the word woman commonly refers to adult human females and did so long before social scientists began using the word in the sense that you use it. About 10 seconds ago (I'm being sarcastic here), it was common to find essays telling people to stop referring to women as females because the latter term dehumanizes women by reducing them to their reproductive anatomy. Lots of people don't take kindly to others telling them what words to use to describe themselves, particularly if they do not share the same belief systems.
2. the clean parsing of the terms in language suggests that sex and the social ideas/values/systems based on it can be cleanly separated. There is clear value in identifying the contingent social things that constrain possibilities for individuals on the basis of their sex, but this endeavor has been corrupted by a radical constructionist view of sex and gender as free-floating constructs that can reassembled at will. I've described it before as a Mr. Potato Head model of sex/gender. The accepted view here seems to be that we are all amorphous potato beings at the core, and it's the various accoutrements layered onto our bodies, material or ideological, make us women or men, non-binary, every gender at once, or no gender at all. This is a fantasy world. Pretending that current identity constructs override or negate the reality of the sexed body does not actually negate this reality, and it has bad consequences for everybody.
3. I always get dinged for this one, but I'll write it nonetheless: the desire to mimic, merge with, and ultimately possess a woman's body is disturbingly common among a subset of male psychosexual predators. The current trans ideology (don't confuse this with trans people) incorporates several of the tactics and psychological distortions of these predators, potentially allowing them to carry out their nefarious deeds publicly without consequences. Among these distortions is the "trans women are women" canard that allows males to claim access to all women's spaces without question. I'm convinced that at least some of the more obnoxious "transwomen" we've seen in the public sphere (Jessica Yaniv, Karen White, probably some of those laying claim to women's sports) are disturbed in such ways. They play on our sympathies for people with genuine gender dysphoria and gender nonconforming people, more generally.