4 ms·

That is an argument out of (uninspiring and not unexpected) ignorance; there are plenty of “biological females” (technically speaking, we all start there, BTW)

That is an argument out of (uninspiring and not unexpected) ignorance; there are plenty of “biological females” (technically speaking, we all start there, BTW) who end puberty with more muscle mass than their average male peer, especially once you account for food access during puberty. Considering “fastest runner” is not directly correlated (and is certainly not caused by) “greatest muscle mass” but has a everything to do with proportion of fast twitch to slow twitch muscle fibers (which also has no obvious and certainly no definitive causal connection to a Y chromosome), there’s no reason to believe the fastest human would necessarily remain biologically male, if the dietary and training regimes were entirely equal (including entirely equally funded) and with all other incentives being equal. Let’s worry about letting people be their authentic selves first, which may well involve dropping gendered sporting boundaries (which primarily exist to protect male economic and social domains from female competition, anyway).

almosthere 2y ago
Merge the NBA so there is no gender requirements at all, (and don't have DEI) and you will be left with JUST MEN! Roll eyes x100000. The long term of your view excludes ALL biological women from sports forever. It is laughable and dangerous. Stop.
ldipj 2y ago
> “biological females” (technically speaking, we all start there, BTW) This isn't true. Sexual differentiation begins around the sixth week of embryonic development. Prior to that, the gonads are undifferentiated. > there's no reason to believe the fastest human would necessarily remain biologically male, if the dietary and training regimes were entirely equal But we already have evidence that this is the case, in world records for elite athletes, for whom training is optimized: the male times are significantly faster than the female times. > gendered sporting boundaries (which primarily exist to protect male economic and social domains from female competition, anyway) The rationale for women's sport is that it is fair to exclude male physical advantage from competition. The primary reason for existence of the female category is fairness. In contact sports, there is also safety to consider. If competitions were mixed-sex, they would be dominated by male athletes in almost every sport. Again there is plenty of real-world evidence for this.

almosthere 2y ago

Merge the NBA so there is no gender requirements at all, (and don't have DEI) and you will be left with JUST MEN! Roll eyes x100000. The long term of your view excludes ALL biological women from sports forever. It is laughable and dangerous. Stop.

ldipj 2y ago

> “biological females” (technically speaking, we all start there, BTW) This isn't true. Sexual differentiation begins around the sixth week of embryonic development. Prior to that, the gonads are undifferentiated. > there's no reason to believe the fastest human would necessarily remain biologically male, if the dietary and training regimes were entirely equal But we already have evidence that this is the case, in world records for elite athletes, for whom training is optimized: the male times are significantly faster than the female times. > gendered sporting boundaries (which primarily exist to protect male economic and social domains from female competition, anyway) The rationale for women's sport is that it is fair to exclude male physical advantage from competition. The primary reason for existence of the female category is fairness. In contact sports, there is also safety to consider. If competitions were mixed-sex, they would be dominated by male athletes in almost every sport. Again there is plenty of real-world evidence for this.