Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits and the right chromosomes and if her testosterone levels have not been chemically elevated then she’s good to go.

I disagree. I think they should draw the line at fully biologically female.

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

As buffy said earlier, all top athletes are at the top of the bell curve anyway. If Caster’s testosterone levels are natural, she’s all good IMHO.

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

I’d like to direct the forum to the intersex episode of You Can’t Ask That.
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/you-can-t-ask-that/series/4/video/LE1817H003S00

Means that woman who are not intersex or trans etc are wasting their time bothering with athletics.

Bubblecar said:

Means that woman who are not intersex or trans etc are wasting their time bothering with athletics.

woman = women

Bubblecar said:

Means that woman who are not intersex or trans etc are wasting their time bothering with athletics.

>>Alana McLaughlin’s journey wasn’t easy. She’s an artist, a survivor, a Cancer and a transgender veteran who suffers from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). <<

Think she would have an unfair strength advantage.

clearly there are many variations of the spectrum of male – female and clearly there is also variations in the societal categorization of ‘intersex’ how that fits into sport is none of my business, but I suspect that the current ‘conditions’ for sporting participation are less fluid than humanity offers.

I lean towards the – if it’s not artificially enhanced, then its a go…

Peak Warming Man said:

Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits and the right chromosomes and if her testosterone levels have not been chemically elevated then she’s good to go.

But how do you determine whether the “girly bits” and chromosomes are “right”?

Peak Warming Man said:

Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits

So women with hysterectomies can’t compete?

Women with chromosomal conditions (of which there are many) shouldn’t compete? What about men with high oestrogen or low testosterone? Should they compete against women, since they’d be no good against males anyway?

Where is the line drawn? What constitutes discrimination? When do we start telling people they can’t compete because they’re not the “right” biological make-up? What biological markets should we look for?

…You get the idea.

Divine Angel said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits

So women with hysterectomies can’t compete?

Women with chromosomal conditions (of which there are many) shouldn’t compete? What about men with high oestrogen or low testosterone? Should they compete against women, since they’d be no good against males anyway?

Where is the line drawn? What constitutes discrimination? When do we start telling people they can’t compete because they’re not the “right” biological make-up? What biological markets should we look for?

…You get the idea.

*markers

peoblems of privilege

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits and the right chromosomes and if her testosterone levels have not been chemically elevated then she’s good to go.

But how do you determine whether the “girly bits” and chromosomes are “right”?

I’m not sure.
They can have the nip and tuck to transition to female but does their chromosomes change?

for mine the key point is “artificially altered” when it comes to sports competition.

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

Arts said:

for mine the key point is “artificially altered” when it comes to sports competition.

and by that I mean at a chemical level… the intake of performance enhancements

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

a biological advantage is not restricted to gender … one can have an ethnic biological advantage..

pardon the virtual keyboard, another problem of privilege on this end

Arts said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

a biological advantage is not restricted to gender … one can have an ethnic biological advantage..

Biological advantage in terms of muscle mass, bone density, skeletal shape (particularly the pelvis), fast-twitch muscle ratio, hemoglobin count, heart size, fat distribution etc. It is more than just testosterone levels.

Ethnic background is a little too sensitive a topic to start excluding people.

I’m happy to go with Arts. If it’s her biological normal, then it’s fine with me. If she is XX she is female. You can’t change the chromosomes.

party_pants said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

a biological advantage is not restricted to gender … one can have an ethnic biological advantage..

Biological advantage in terms of muscle mass, bone density, skeletal shape (particularly the pelvis), fast-twitch muscle ratio, hemoglobin count, heart size, fat distribution etc. It is more than just testosterone levels.

Ethnic background is a little too sensitive a topic to start excluding people.

not really

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

This should go in this thread:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-05/caster-semenya-testosterone-iaaf-doctors-unethical-world-medical/11081084

The medicos say it is reverse doping and unethical to require her to reduce her levels.

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

If the current women’s competitions can so easily be transformed into ambiguous competitions, the same would presumably happen to any attempt to restore less ambiguous women’s competitions.

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

Well, it will kill off women’s sport, until such time as they form a new more restricted category.

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

Well, it will kill off women’s sport, until such time as they form a new more restricted category.

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

Bubblecar said:

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

If the current women’s competitions can so easily be transformed into ambiguous competitions, the same would presumably happen to any attempt to restore less ambiguous women’s competitions.

true, except that next time an ambiguity competition will already exist

party_pants said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

a biological advantage is not restricted to gender … one can have an ethnic biological advantage..

Biological advantage in terms of muscle mass, bone density, skeletal shape (particularly the pelvis), fast-twitch muscle ratio, hemoglobin count, heart size, fat distribution etc. It is more than just testosterone levels.

Ethnic background is a little too sensitive a topic to start excluding people.

why is one topic more sensitive than others? they are all sensitive or they are all topics we should all explore without bias…

goodness, this is almost like my thesis proposal

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

how many more Olympic games can we possibly fit in?

buffy said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

Well, it will kill off women’s sport, until such time as they form a new more restricted category.

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

Arts said:

buffy said:

party_pants said:

Well, it will kill off women’s sport, until such time as they form a new more restricted category.

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

Arts said:

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

how many more Olympic games can we possibly fit in?

eSports are on the cards and i fully support them

and surprise me folks, if sex or gender or ambiguity makes a byte of difference in these, well

buffy said:

party_pants said:

SCIENCE said:

no big deal

if it’s really a thing then current women’s competitions will become ambiguous competitions

then less ambiguous women will have a chance to start their own less ambiguous women’s competitions

Well, it will kill off women’s sport, until such time as they form a new more restricted category.

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

There’s enough for it start becoming a problem.

buffy said:

Arts said:

buffy said:

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

i’m specifically not saying they are doing anything against the rules, but if some other 1.7% of the female sporting population do doping, should we accept that ¿

furthermore, if these 1.7% have an advantage in sports, do we believe they may therefore overrepresent in sports ¿¿

buffy said:

Arts said:

buffy said:

I don’t see that at all. There are no very many of these people. As I said before in another thread, they are waaaay out on the edge of the bell curve.

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

well, they aren’t female… nor male

Arts said:

buffy said:

Arts said:

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

well, they aren’t female… nor male

so which of the female or male competitions should they be in

SCIENCE said:

Arts said:

buffy said:

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

well, they aren’t female… nor male

so which of the female or male competitions should they be in

all I am saying is that 1.7% of the human population are intersex… according to the program.

Arts said:

buffy said:

Arts said:

1.7% according to the ‘You can’t ask that” stats that DA posted

So 1.7% of the female population? And what percentage of them are interested in the sporting aspects anyway. It won’t be all of them.

well, they aren’t female… nor male

I must have misunderstood. I thought we were talking about women with high testosterone levels. I must have missed the intersex bit.

fair shot, i don’t mind giving time for 1.7% of humans to hold competitions

Divine Angel said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Complex case but on face value if she has the right girly bits

So women with hysterectomies can’t compete?

Women with chromosomal conditions (of which there are many) shouldn’t compete? What about men with high oestrogen or low testosterone? Should they compete against women, since they’d be no good against males anyway?

Where is the line drawn? What constitutes discrimination? When do we start telling people they can’t compete because they’re not the “right” biological make-up? What biological markets should we look for?

…You get the idea.

………………….What about men with high oestrogen or low testosterone? Should they compete against women, since they’d be no good against males anyway?

That’d be me.

Say someone was born with four normal legs and it eventuated that they developed into a very good and fast runner. Should such a person be able to compete with normally 2 legged athletes of the same sex?

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

OK. Elite athletes all have a biologic advantages – eg: their tendons are the right length and attached in the right place. And (for instance) the AIS measures this (and many other attributes) in order to sort the people with lots of potential from those with less potential.

Michael V said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

so what, then we have to have another event for intersex competitors?

pretty much, or they compete with the men.

what’s the point of women’s sports anyway. Is it to exclude men, or to exclude those who have a biological advantage so women can compete only against those who have the same biological disadvantage? I favour the latter – it is about excluding anyone with a biological advantage. That includes trans and intersex.

OK. Elite athletes all have a biologic advantages – eg: their tendons are the right length and attached in the right place. And (for instance) the AIS measures this (and many other attributes) in order to sort the people with lots of potential from those with less potential.

we could measure people against their own level, eg awards for improvement

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

This is a good long read about it

Testosterone and performance

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

Yes, but what makes it more problematic is a trans person going from male to female and competing in female events.

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

Yes, but what makes it more problematic is a trans person going from male to female and competing in female events.

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

Yes, but what makes it more problematic is a trans person going from male to female and competing in female events.

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

Yes, but what makes it more problematic is a trans person going from male to female and competing in female events.

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

Ah soz, didn’t read the whole thread….that’s not the forum way.

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

Yes, but what makes it more problematic is a trans person going from male to female and competing in female events.

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

I think some wires got crossed a bit further back and somehow trans came into it when it wasn’t what was being discussed.

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

Ah soz, didn’t read the whole thread….that’s not the forum way.

Sorry this, sorry that?!? YOU TWO NEED TO GET A ROOM!

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

Sure…but she’s not trans (so says the IAAF).

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

Ah soz, didn’t read the whole thread….that’s not the forum way.

Neither is apologising. That is twice today that I’ve had to pull someone up over this. Completely unacceptable.

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

sibeen said:

Sorry, I agree. The conversation within the thread had seemed to expand and I was more replying to that.

Ah soz, didn’t read the whole thread….that’s not the forum way.

Neither is apologising. That is twice today that I’ve had to pull someone up over this. Completely unacceptable.

say sorry witty!

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

ChrispenEvan said:

sibeen said:

poikilotherm said:

Ah soz, didn’t read the whole thread….that’s not the forum way.

Neither is apologising. That is twice today that I’ve had to pull someone up over this. Completely unacceptable.

say sorry witty!

Sorry Witty!

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

kidding themselves.

I don’t have strong opinions on this, not because I don’t think it is important but because it is complex and I can see both sides of the argument, but it seems tough to ping someone because of higher than normal natural testosterone levels. I mean some male athletes also have higher than normal natural testosterone levels …

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

kidding themselves.

They need a steady churn of people types with ambition and drive who buy into the dream that they can win just by trying harder than everyone else. Without that the sports will struggle to attract competitors.

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

kidding themselves.

They need a steady churn of people types with ambition and drive who buy into the dream that they can win just by trying harder than everyone else. Without that the sports will struggle to attract competitors.

They’ll still get those. No one likes a try hard anyway.

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

party_pants said:

There’s no fairness in this siutation. Either way someone misses out. It is not say athletes like Semenya are cheating, but letting them compete unhindered limits opportunity for someone else.

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

Maybe the drive to do all that training and put in all that effort is also a form of genetic freakish.

Arts said:

party_pants said:

poikilotherm said:

The news is comparing it to Phelps who also has some genetic weirdness that no one whinged about at the time.

Being a genetic freak or a drug cheat is pretty much what makes an elite athlete.

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

Maybe the drive to do all that training and put in all that effort is also a form of genetic freakish.

We can’t test for that. We can test for testosterone levels.

party_pants said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

That’s the thing right. They want the sport to be more about training and effort and attitude etc rather than genetic freakism.

Maybe the drive to do all that training and put in all that effort is also a form of genetic freakish.

We can’t test for that. We can test for testosterone levels.

and yet we have conflicting evidence of what that means for performance.

Performance you say ¿

Does this count as performance ¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nurse-marathon-world-record-dress-not-scrubs-trousers/11082254?pfm=ms&pfmredir=sm

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

Bubblecar said:

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

Except for those female athletes who don’t come within the rules.

SCIENCE said:

Performance you say ¿

Does this count as performance ¿

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-06/nurse-marathon-world-record-dress-not-scrubs-trousers/11082254?pfm=ms&pfmredir=sm

Well it certainly comes within some meanings of the word “performance”.

And I might ask, who gave a brewery company the right to make such rules?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

Except for those female athletes who don’t come within the rules.

Read the article Rev. It’s very sensible and very informative.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

Except for those female athletes who don’t come within the rules.

It seems reasonable doesn’t it.
It would include sex changes but includes the possibility the person whose now a female might have male level testosterone levels and a possible advantage that needs to be taken into account

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

Except for those female athletes who don’t come within the rules.

Read the article Rev. It’s very sensible and very informative.

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Except for those female athletes who don’t come within the rules.

Read the article Rev. It’s very sensible and very informative.

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Read the article Rev. It’s very sensible and very informative.

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

I think so

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

I think so

I wonder how an elite female athletes testosterone levels compare to a healthy reasonably fit male whose not a professional athlete

>>Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles

Well if that’s the case I don’t think she’s good to go.

Bubblecar said:

A Victory for Female Athletes Everywhere

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) this week upheld the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) regulations governing eligibility for the women’s category in international elite athletics competition. In effect, CAS decided the question “who is a woman” for purposes of elite sport. And it ratified the IAAF’s preferred answer: A woman in sport is anyone whose legal identity is female—whether they personally identify as such or not—and who has testosterone (T) levels in the female range. That may seem like a mere technical ruling. But as I’ll explain in this article, the ramifications are profound for female athletics everywhere—a cause that has been central to my life and to the lives of millions of girls and women worldwide.

https://quillette.com/2019/05/03/a-victory-for-female-athletes-everywhere/

The ruling might well be a pragmatically appropriate decision.

From a scientific and logical standpoint I have objections to some of the characterisations in this article on two counts.

Firstly, obviously, this is not a victory for all female athletes. It’s win for a majority of female athletes and a huge blow to a minority . It might be a necessary course of action but there’s no need for the trumpets. It’s great news for women on 4.9 and bad news for those on 5.1. It’s unfortunate that the IAAF has had to apply a cut.

Secondly, there’s a logical problem with the characterisation of a female range, a male range, and a “gap”. If there really were a gap, there’d be no need for this ruling. The actual female range overlaps the male range, which is why the IAAF has needed to make this arbitrary cut.

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

I think so

I wonder how an elite female athletes testosterone levels compare to a healthy reasonably fit male whose not a professional athlete

Still considerably lower. As that article points out, the records of the very best female athletes are regularly broken by non-elite male athletes, even by schoolboys.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Read the article Rev. It’s very sensible and very informative.

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

But “female” and “male” are not clearly defined categories. Any definition that is set is arbitrary. This particular instance may well be perfectly reasonable,
but it can’t be a victory for the empowerment of women, because wherever you set the limit there will always be some individuals who are excluded who are only marginally different from those who are included.

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

Cymek said:

I think so

I wonder how an elite female athletes testosterone levels compare to a healthy reasonably fit male whose not a professional athlete

Still considerably lower. As that article points out, the records of the very best female athletes are regularly broken by non-elite male athletes, even by schoolboys.

True
Way back when I set a 440yd record of 47.4 The current world female 400m record is 47.6

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It may well be, but it doesn’t affect the underlying principles.

For female sport to serve the purpose of allowing women to compete against other women on the basis of biologically-determined athletic prowess (compared with men), then “female” needs to be defined by reference to testosterone levels.

Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles producing much higher levels of testosterone than typical females. This undermines the whole concept of “female sport” as a category – we expect females to compete against other females because they can’t compete with males, because male athletic prowess is very much boosted by testosterone and its effects on various aspects of bodily development.

But “female” and “male” are not clearly defined categories. Any definition that is set is arbitrary. This particular instance may well be perfectly reasonable,
but it can’t be a victory for the empowerment of women, because wherever you set the limit there will always be some individuals who are excluded who are only marginally different from those who are included.

Biologically, “male” and “female” are clearly defined categories. We live in a culture in which biological categories are increasingly rejected by this or that lobby group, but for the purposes of sports categories, if male and female are not biologically defined then there’s no point maintaining them. Just tell women not to bother getting involved.

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Cymek said:

I wonder how an elite female athletes testosterone levels compare to a healthy reasonably fit male whose not a professional athlete

Still considerably lower. As that article points out, the records of the very best female athletes are regularly broken by non-elite male athletes, even by schoolboys.

True
Way back when I set a 440yd record of 47.4 The current world female 400m record is 47.6

FMD Tamb you were in world record ballpark.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>Caster Semenya is an intersex person with testicles

Well if that’s the case I don’t think she’s good to go.

She doesn’t have testicles per se, which are exterior sacs holding the testes.

She might have internal testes: I’m not aware that this has ever been confirmed but it’s typical for people with her condition.

Peak Warming Man said:

Tamb said:

Bubblecar said:

Still considerably lower. As that article points out, the records of the very best female athletes are regularly broken by non-elite male athletes, even by schoolboys.

True
Way back when I set a 440yd record of 47.4 The current world female 400m record is 47.6

FMD Tamb you were in world record ballpark.

Almost. Two pre-Olympic trials. Never in serious contention but they needed someone to keep the real probables honest.

Bubblecar said:

Biologically, “male” and “female” are clearly defined categories. We live in a culture in which biological categories are increasingly rejected by this or that lobby group, but for the purposes of sports categories, if male and female are not biologically defined then there’s no point maintaining them. Just tell women not to bother getting involved.

But they are not.

There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

As it is for all of the thousands of other continuous distributions that we like to divide into distinct categories.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Biologically, “male” and “female” are clearly defined categories. We live in a culture in which biological categories are increasingly rejected by this or that lobby group, but for the purposes of sports categories, if male and female are not biologically defined then there’s no point maintaining them. Just tell women not to bother getting involved.

But they are not.

There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

As it is for all of the thousands of other continuous distributions that we like to divide into distinct categories.

Perhaps then if you are a female athlete not born biologically female, your testosterone levels are measured and if higher than all other female athletes you get a performance penalty (how that would work I am not sure)

>There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

The line is not “arbitrary” for distinctions serving clearly specified purposes, such as enabling women to compete against other women without having to deal with unfair advantages associated with typically male biology.

Bubblecar said:

>There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

The line is not “arbitrary” for distinctions serving clearly specified purposes, such as enabling women to compete against other women without having to deal with unfair advantages associated with typically male biology.

Using testosterone only for this is overly simplistic.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

The line is not “arbitrary” for distinctions serving clearly specified purposes, such as enabling women to compete against other women without having to deal with unfair advantages associated with typically male biology.

Using testosterone only for this is overly simplistic.

From that article:

Some have argued that the dominance of the 46, XY DSD athletes in women’s events is not necessarily due to their T levels. It is said, for example, that advocates for the regulations are incorrectly essentializing testosterone, and that T is no more determinative of outcomes in sport than are other physical and physiological traits like height or wing span or V02 max. These critiques have no basis in fact. As I wrote in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems, the differences between male-bodied and female-bodied performances

hold even when we adjust for the fact that the best elite athletes are “freaks of nature” and that their success can be largely attributed to their unusual physical traits. Sex, specifically testes and their effects, matter in ways that other biological differences among athletes do not. For example, swimmer and multiple Gold Medalist Missy Franklin is six feet two inches tall with a wing span of six feet four inches. Her world record in the 200 meters backstroke, set at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, is 2:04.06. Ryan Lochte’s world record, set at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, was a full nine seconds faster at 1:53.94. If Franklin had been in that race, at her best she would have been about a half a lap behind Lochte when he finished, even though they are the same height and have just about the same wingspan. In a world in which competitors were categorized by height and wingspan (or just height or just wingspan) instead of sex, Franklin would not have had a world record; she would not have been on the podium; in fact, she would not have made the team. In those circumstances, we might not even know her name.

FtR though it is not as though Caster was putting in times that were way ahead of the rest of the field, or times that were near what the dudes were doing. She doesn’t even hold any world records. He presence wasn’t breaking the sport.

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

The line is not “arbitrary” for distinctions serving clearly specified purposes, such as enabling women to compete against other women without having to deal with unfair advantages associated with typically male biology.

Using testosterone only for this is overly simplistic.

From that article:

Some have argued that the dominance of the 46, XY DSD athletes in women’s events is not necessarily due to their T levels. It is said, for example, that advocates for the regulations are incorrectly essentializing testosterone, and that T is no more determinative of outcomes in sport than are other physical and physiological traits like height or wing span or V02 max. These critiques have no basis in fact. As I wrote in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems, the differences between male-bodied and female-bodied performances

hold even when we adjust for the fact that the best elite athletes are “freaks of nature” and that their success can be largely attributed to their unusual physical traits. Sex, specifically testes and their effects, matter in ways that other biological differences among athletes do not. For example, swimmer and multiple Gold Medalist Missy Franklin is six feet two inches tall with a wing span of six feet four inches. Her world record in the 200 meters backstroke, set at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, is 2:04.06. Ryan Lochte’s world record, set at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, was a full nine seconds faster at 1:53.94. If Franklin had been in that race, at her best she would have been about a half a lap behind Lochte when he finished, even though they are the same height and have just about the same wingspan. In a world in which competitors were categorized by height and wingspan (or just height or just wingspan) instead of sex, Franklin would not have had a world record; she would not have been on the podium; in fact, she would not have made the team. In those circumstances, we might not even know her name.

journal Law and Contemporary Problems

ROFL.

Bubblecar said:

>There is a continuum from “male” to “female”, so any dividing line is arbitrary.

The line is not “arbitrary” for distinctions serving clearly specified purposes, such as enabling women to compete against other women without having to deal with unfair advantages associated with typically male biology.

It doesn’t matter what the purpose is.

If you have a continuum that you want to divide into two distinct categories, then the exact location of that dividing line is unavoidably arbitrary.

What about this test

dv said:

He presence wasn’t breaking the sport.

Nice Freudian slip

Cymek said:

What about this test

Ability to respond with a smart comeback line is not a definitive indication of gender.

By the way, is there anyone who disputes that male/female is a continuum?

I’m making that assumption, but if I’m wrong, then that would change things.

My T is way below the divide. Can I compete?

Michael V said:

My T is way below the divide. Can I compete?

Whilst Mr T is way above the line you crazy fool

Michael V said:

My T is way below the divide. Can I compete?

What are your times like?

Michael V said:

My T is way below the divide. Can I compete?

Depends.

Do you have testicles?

If so, where are they?

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Using testosterone only for this is overly simplistic.

From that article:

Some have argued that the dominance of the 46, XY DSD athletes in women’s events is not necessarily due to their T levels. It is said, for example, that advocates for the regulations are incorrectly essentializing testosterone, and that T is no more determinative of outcomes in sport than are other physical and physiological traits like height or wing span or V02 max. These critiques have no basis in fact. As I wrote in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems, the differences between male-bodied and female-bodied performances

hold even when we adjust for the fact that the best elite athletes are “freaks of nature” and that their success can be largely attributed to their unusual physical traits. Sex, specifically testes and their effects, matter in ways that other biological differences among athletes do not. For example, swimmer and multiple Gold Medalist Missy Franklin is six feet two inches tall with a wing span of six feet four inches. Her world record in the 200 meters backstroke, set at the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, is 2:04.06. Ryan Lochte’s world record, set at the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, was a full nine seconds faster at 1:53.94. If Franklin had been in that race, at her best she would have been about a half a lap behind Lochte when he finished, even though they are the same height and have just about the same wingspan. In a world in which competitors were categorized by height and wingspan (or just height or just wingspan) instead of sex, Franklin would not have had a world record; she would not have been on the podium; in fact, she would not have made the team. In those circumstances, we might not even know her name.

journal Law and Contemporary Problems

ROFL.

?

The Rev Dodgson said:

By the way, is there anyone who disputes that male/female is a continuum?

I’m making that assumption, but if I’m wrong, then that would change things.

Possibly a continuum with an extremely sparsely populated mid section.

Go with the no homers rule, the association of which ever sport can decide for itself who gets to play in its competitions.

dv said:

Michael V said:

My T is way below the divide. Can I compete?

What are your times like?

They were very good about 50 years ago.

AwesomeO said:

Go with the no homers rule, the association of which ever sport can decide for itself who gets to play in its competitions.

Like backyard cricket. Over the fence is out.

Maybe we just need a lot more sports where the best women are way better than the best men.

Then we could have all competitions open to everyone, but the top performing women would still get a chance to be the best in their chosen sport.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Maybe we just need a lot more sports where the best women are way better than the best men.

Then we could have all competitions open to everyone, but the top performing women would still get a chance to be the best in their chosen sport.

Are there any sports like that?

The Rev Dodgson said:

By the way, is there anyone who disputes that male/female is a continuum?

I’m making that assumption, but if I’m wrong, then that would change things.

I would have thought there were continuous metrics and also discretised metrics. Genital form and hormone levels are on a continuum: arguably, glandular categories can be considered a continuum as well since testes or ovaries can be vestigial or ineffective.

Chromosomal categories could probably be counted as discretised, though when you look into it there are quite a lot of categories, not just 2.

Tamb said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Maybe we just need a lot more sports where the best women are way better than the best men.

Then we could have all competitions open to everyone, but the top performing women would still get a chance to be the best in their chosen sport.

Are there any sports like that?

There’s playing upon the rub-adub, for a start:

The Female Drummer

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

By the way, is there anyone who disputes that male/female is a continuum?

I’m making that assumption, but if I’m wrong, then that would change things.

I would have thought there were continuous metrics and also discretised metrics. Genital form and hormone levels are on a continuum: arguably, glandular categories can be considered a continuum as well since testes or ovaries can be vestigial or ineffective.

Chromosomal categories could probably be counted as discretised, though when you look into it there are quite a lot of categories, not just 2.

I guess you could define female as only those in the most female of the chromosomal categories.

That would work I suppose.

Should be noted that CS is not out of options. She can take medication to reduce her testosterone level below 5.

Can someone point me to something that indicates that Caster Semenya is intersex please? I checked Wikipedia and it says:

>>The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and are widely discussed, resulting in claims about Semenya having an intersex trait.<<

So claims about never released results. She may just have high testosterone levels without being intersex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

It’s only rumoured that she’s intersex. There’s nothing publicly confirmed.

buffy said:

Can someone point me to something that indicates that Caster Semenya is intersex please? I checked Wikipedia and it says:

>>The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and are widely discussed, resulting in claims about Semenya having an intersex trait.<<

So claims about never released results. She may just have high testosterone levels without being intersex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

She has genetic disorder 46XY DSD

buffy said:

Can someone point me to something that indicates that Caster Semenya is intersex please? I checked Wikipedia and it says:

>>The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and are widely discussed, resulting in claims about Semenya having an intersex trait.<<

So claims about never released results. She may just have high testosterone levels without being intersex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

Intersex is a very broad category denoting a wide variety of atypical physical, hormonal, glandular and/or chromosomal conditions.

Her legal team conceded that tests have shown she is in a chromosomal category called 46,XY DSD. This is tantamount to saying she is intersex.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Can someone point me to something that indicates that Caster Semenya is intersex please? I checked Wikipedia and it says:

>>The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and are widely discussed, resulting in claims about Semenya having an intersex trait.<<

So claims about never released results. She may just have high testosterone levels without being intersex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

She has genetic disorder 46XY DSD

Which is assumed on my part as the IAAF are specifically focusing on only this disorder iirc.

Thanks poik, I’ll go and read the real science.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Can someone point me to something that indicates that Caster Semenya is intersex please? I checked Wikipedia and it says:

>>The sex test results were never published officially, but some results were leaked in the press and are widely discussed, resulting in claims about Semenya having an intersex trait.<<

So claims about never released results. She may just have high testosterone levels without being intersex.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya

She has genetic disorder 46XY DSD

How bout that? I learned something today.

Oh gak…poik sent me to detailed embryology and genetics! I’ll have to skim….there are soooo many variations for this condition.

buffy said:

Oh gak…poik sent me to detailed embryology and genetics! I’ll have to skim….there are soooo many variations for this condition.

ha

Try this one

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

Well, I think the first check done is an examination of the external genitalia, so at the least she had been required to show her bits.

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

I pay someone to do that so I have time in the day to flail.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Oh gak…poik sent me to detailed embryology and genetics! I’ll have to skim….there are soooo many variations for this condition.

ha

Try this one

Oh, the other one is readable, just a lot of it and gets very, very detailed. And you end up thinking…so many possibilities here.

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Bubblecar said:

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

This.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

kii said:

Ah, sports. Always some issue or something.

Can’t help thinking she’s been through all the hells and now let’s flay her in the public arena. Highly likely she’s been sexually assaulted.
Why can’t people go do something useful? Like clean the floor.

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

yea, nah.

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

yea, nah.

Another blistering contribution from Mr Articulate.

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

?

I haven’t encountered anyone criticising her at all in this debate.

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

But we (and doubtless many others, elsewhere) are discussing her predicament.

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Has had quite the invasion of privacy though – who wouldn’t love half the world talking about their DSD…

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

But we (and doubtless many others, elsewhere) are discussing her predicament.

As dv pointed out, she can still compete under these rules by taking approved drugs to lower her testosterone levels.

And as the article I linked pointed out, without these rules it could be quite easy for women’s sport to become dominated by a small number of intersex people or indeed transgender people. In which case biologically typical women (who make up the vast majority) would be wasting their time bothering to get involved.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

Determining whether one is competing in an appropriate category is hardly an invasion of privacy.

But we (and doubtless many others, elsewhere) are discussing her predicament.

As dv pointed out, she can still compete under these rules by taking approved drugs to lower her testosterone levels.

And as the article I linked pointed out, without these rules it could be quite easy for women’s sport to become dominated by a small number of intersex people or indeed transgender people. In which case biologically typical women (who make up the vast majority) would be wasting their time bothering to get involved.

Why should she?

Did the rules say Phelps’ fingers/arms should be shortened?

kii said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

But we (and doubtless many others, elsewhere) are discussing her predicament.

As dv pointed out, she can still compete under these rules by taking approved drugs to lower her testosterone levels.

And as the article I linked pointed out, without these rules it could be quite easy for women’s sport to become dominated by a small number of intersex people or indeed transgender people. In which case biologically typical women (who make up the vast majority) would be wasting their time bothering to get involved.

Why should she?

Did the rules say Phelps’ fingers/arms should be shortened?

Because the whole category of “women’s sport” exists because we traditionally don’t think it’s fair that people with typically female biology should compete against people with typically male biology.

Now you may think that’s wrong, and the best performance should triumph, regardless of whether it’s a product of typically male or female biology.

In which case, there’s no reason to maintain any category of “women’s sport”. There would be simply one category open to all, and those with typically male biology will always win. Women wouldn’t even get selected for teams, they’d have no chance.

Women shouldn’t do sport they should be making pie