3 ms·

The easiest way to explain this nonsense is that in 100+ years of Olympics, there are ZERO elite athletes who were transgender none it's brought to you by th

by ck2 7mo ago

The easiest way to explain this nonsense is that in 100+ years of Olympics, there are ZERO elite athletes who were transgender none it's brought to you by the some of the very same people who want you to prove you are a citizen every time you vote because there have been no previous cases of that either However there are women who have given birth who will fail that SRY test Because biology is messy, not black and white, never "on" or "off", there is always overlap They tried this before in 1996 and quickly ended it by 2000 because the result was a disaster

gpm 7mo ago
There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... which is about the expected result of bigots trying to work backwards from the result they want headlines about.
- badc0ffee 7mo ago
  > There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is news to me - which males are you talking about here? > This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... It's really not, though. They found a marker they can test for, and have clearly defined exceptions.
  - gpm 7mo ago
    > This is news to me - which males are you talking about here? This poor bloke who found out he was infertile during a premarital medical exam, for instance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ > It's really not, though. They found a marker they can test for, and have clearly defined exceptions. Have you heard of the politician's fallacy, "something needs to be done, this is something, so this needs to be done"... Your argument here is that... needing a test, and having a test, doesn't mean it's the right test. You're also assuming that we even need a test... evidence (no transfemale olympians ever coming not dead last) suggests we don't.
    - badc0ffee 7mo ago
      > This poor bloke who found out he was infertile during a premarital medical exam, for instance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ Interesting. Perhaps a better test is needed. > You're also assuming that we even need a test... evidence (no transfemale olympians ever coming not dead last) suggests we don't. This isn't just about trans women, but also about DSD cases like Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya.
      - patagurbon 7mo ago
        SRY testing was done at the 1996 games and for a while before that. 8 cisgender women tested positive at that games. Far more than the number of transgender athletes who have ever participated. This resulted in genetic testing being changed from all women to on-suspicion. The bottom line is these tests will catch dozens of people who are phenotypically women, who can even give birth. Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women?
        badc0ffee 7mo ago
        From what I've read, these women all had CAIS or similar, and testosterone had no effect on their bodies. Thankfully the new IOC guidelines have an exception for that and would let them compete with women. But I want to point out that XY+CAIS individuals cannot conceive or carry a child. They have no ovaries and no uterus. > Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women? They are, if they are female or have CAIS. Caster Semenya, for example, does not meet that standard. Caster was assigned female at birth and raised as a girl, but is not biologically female, rather a male with a DSD (5-ARD) who has testes and fully male levels of testosterone and musculature.
        ck2 7mo ago
        there are many types of DSD (aka intersex) one type most definitely would "fail" SRY test yet they can give birth using donated egg, IVF, etc. nature makes many variations, it's not exact, it's not binary there is common and less common and that's why it's messy A different approach would have been to accommodate the less common But they purposely decided not to do that because that's the opposite of their goals
  - ck2 7mo ago
    it's because Y chromosome is transient and "males" can lose it with age or illness it doesn't really do anything after puberty it's about gene expression and it can be discarded genetically so yes there are "men" walking around who would show negative on a SRY test and qualify again, they tried this exact thing in 1996 and it went over so badly they ended it by 2000 this is 100% politics and conservative people with power trying to manipulate things biology is not binary, it's messy and not exact there are "common" things and less common Another approach would have been to accommodate the less common But you'll notice they didn't even try to do that
qu4z-2 7mo ago
> it's brought to you by the some of the very same people who want you to prove you are a citizen every time you vote I'm staying out of the other issue as best I can, but as a non-American the resistance to this is just baffling, especially given the fact your recent elections have not exactly been widely trusted internally. Not that I'm saying there was much merit to the distrust, but it still makes sense to take steps to demonstrate it. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
- dangus 7mo ago
  The issue isn’t the proof of citizenship. The issue is that poll taxes are unconstitutional and there is no state that I’m aware of that makes the acquisition of identification documents free of cost. I’m honestly quite surprised that politicians don’t resolve this idiotic situation because it’s so damn simple, but I think it’s not solved because various state governments rely on small fees for revenue. And of course because there are many political situations in which making it difficult for specific opponent voters to vote is a campaign strategy. Make fees for drivers licenses, birth certificates, and passports illegal, and ideally institute a system that makes these forms of identification automatic/stupidly easy to acquire and the whole issue is resolved. Now you can require voters to present them and you aren’t disenfranchising anyone.
  - lstodd 7mo ago
    Thanks for clarifying. Not being of USA I didn't even consider the angle about having to pay for government ID - it's a very alien concept for us in eastern europe at least. Election fraud on the other hand.. this we are very familiar with. Reaction to the coverage of last three US presidential elections was mostly "oh, how cute, such naive first attempts". So from our PoV there most certainly were widespread attempts to rig them, mostly from Dem side, and so very unprofessional, that their existence cannot be denied in good faith.
    - dangus 7mo ago
      > from our PoV there most certainly were widespread attempts to rig them, mostly from Dem side Oof, I feel bad for whatever news network you are getting your American coverage from. You might want to look into who owns that news network. This is a very common political message specifically originating from the Republican Party’s media network (e.g., Murdoch-owned media, Turning Point USA, etc).

by ck2 7mo ago

gpm 7mo ago

There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... which is about the expected result of bigots trying to work backwards from the result they want headlines about.

badc0ffee 7mo ago
> There's also cis-male people who will "pass" that SRY test if they take it for some reason... This is news to me - which males are you talking about here? > This is a dumb ass way to try and define the woman's category... It's really not, though. They found a marker they can test for, and have clearly defined exceptions.
- gpm 7mo ago
  > This is news to me - which males are you talking about here? This poor bloke who found out he was infertile during a premarital medical exam, for instance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ > It's really not, though. They found a marker they can test for, and have clearly defined exceptions. Have you heard of the politician's fallacy, "something needs to be done, this is something, so this needs to be done"... Your argument here is that... needing a test, and having a test, doesn't mean it's the right test. You're also assuming that we even need a test... evidence (no transfemale olympians ever coming not dead last) suggests we don't.
  - badc0ffee 7mo ago
    > This poor bloke who found out he was infertile during a premarital medical exam, for instance: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7760426/ Interesting. Perhaps a better test is needed. > You're also assuming that we even need a test... evidence (no transfemale olympians ever coming not dead last) suggests we don't. This isn't just about trans women, but also about DSD cases like Imane Khelif and Caster Semenya.
    - patagurbon 7mo ago
      SRY testing was done at the 1996 games and for a while before that. 8 cisgender women tested positive at that games. Far more than the number of transgender athletes who have ever participated. This resulted in genetic testing being changed from all women to on-suspicion. The bottom line is these tests will catch dozens of people who are phenotypically women, who can even give birth. Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women?
      - badc0ffee 7mo ago
        From what I've read, these women all had CAIS or similar, and testosterone had no effect on their bodies. Thankfully the new IOC guidelines have an exception for that and would let them compete with women. But I want to point out that XY+CAIS individuals cannot conceive or carry a child. They have no ovaries and no uterus. > Why should men be allowed to compete as genetic freaks but not women? They are, if they are female or have CAIS. Caster Semenya, for example, does not meet that standard. Caster was assigned female at birth and raised as a girl, but is not biologically female, rather a male with a DSD (5-ARD) who has testes and fully male levels of testosterone and musculature.
        ck2 7mo ago
        there are many types of DSD (aka intersex) one type most definitely would "fail" SRY test yet they can give birth using donated egg, IVF, etc. nature makes many variations, it's not exact, it's not binary there is common and less common and that's why it's messy A different approach would have been to accommodate the less common But they purposely decided not to do that because that's the opposite of their goals
- ck2 7mo ago
  it's because Y chromosome is transient and "males" can lose it with age or illness it doesn't really do anything after puberty it's about gene expression and it can be discarded genetically so yes there are "men" walking around who would show negative on a SRY test and qualify again, they tried this exact thing in 1996 and it went over so badly they ended it by 2000 this is 100% politics and conservative people with power trying to manipulate things biology is not binary, it's messy and not exact there are "common" things and less common Another approach would have been to accommodate the less common But you'll notice they didn't even try to do that

qu4z-2 7mo ago

> it's brought to you by the some of the very same people who want you to prove you are a citizen every time you vote I'm staying out of the other issue as best I can, but as a non-American the resistance to this is just baffling, especially given the fact your recent elections have not exactly been widely trusted internally. Not that I'm saying there was much merit to the distrust, but it still makes sense to take steps to demonstrate it. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

dangus 7mo ago
The issue isn’t the proof of citizenship. The issue is that poll taxes are unconstitutional and there is no state that I’m aware of that makes the acquisition of identification documents free of cost. I’m honestly quite surprised that politicians don’t resolve this idiotic situation because it’s so damn simple, but I think it’s not solved because various state governments rely on small fees for revenue. And of course because there are many political situations in which making it difficult for specific opponent voters to vote is a campaign strategy. Make fees for drivers licenses, birth certificates, and passports illegal, and ideally institute a system that makes these forms of identification automatic/stupidly easy to acquire and the whole issue is resolved. Now you can require voters to present them and you aren’t disenfranchising anyone.
- lstodd 7mo ago
  Thanks for clarifying. Not being of USA I didn't even consider the angle about having to pay for government ID - it's a very alien concept for us in eastern europe at least. Election fraud on the other hand.. this we are very familiar with. Reaction to the coverage of last three US presidential elections was mostly "oh, how cute, such naive first attempts". So from our PoV there most certainly were widespread attempts to rig them, mostly from Dem side, and so very unprofessional, that their existence cannot be denied in good faith.
  - dangus 7mo ago
    > from our PoV there most certainly were widespread attempts to rig them, mostly from Dem side Oof, I feel bad for whatever news network you are getting your American coverage from. You might want to look into who owns that news network. This is a very common political message specifically originating from the Republican Party’s media network (e.g., Murdoch-owned media, Turning Point USA, etc).