10 ms·

I am going to try to keep my response apolitical to try to avoid fanning a culture war. That Wiki is the exact reason we are in this situation because we are br

I am going to try to keep my response apolitical to try to avoid fanning a culture war. That Wiki is the exact reason we are in this situation because we are bringing up points for 1 in 20000 or 0.005% of the population. Any system designed around 0.005% edge cases is going to be so complex that it is functionally impossible to do in practice. That is why one side says the solution is "obvious" because we have a simple rule that covers 99.9% of cases and the other 0.1% is unfortunately effectively barred from high level competition. Note, high level competition already bars 99.9% of people. Even though the opposing side is correct in pointing out these edge cases, it does nothing to advance an actual solution.

saalweachter 6mo ago
There are statistically around 15 women AFAB with XY chromosomes in the NCAA by those numbers (assuming no correlation between Swyer syndrome and athletic performance). There are currently around 10 openly transgender women in the NCAA. Small numbers either way.
tensor 6mo ago
Except I proposed a solution, which you ignored (I'm assuming here that I'm your "opposing side".) Also, there are a significant number of these sorts of arguments in high-level sports, probably precisely because these "0.1%" cases are exactly the ones that result in exceptional ability relative to norms. It's also curious that there is such obsession about naturally occurring genetic outliers with respect to females or gender but absolute silence about naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender. And surprise surprise the top athletes often have such outlier genetics! If you're drawing a distinction between natural genetic difference related to only gender and no other factors then sadly it's exactly a culture war, not a war based in science or fairness.
- appreciatorBus 6mo ago
  > naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender This is just not true. Many sports are categorized by weight for the most obvious example.
  - tensor 6mo ago
    Yes. Which is what I proposed for all differences. Note that classifying by weight is not banning athletes like is happening in the olympics.
    - appreciatorBus 6mo ago
      Heavy weight boxers are banned from competing against feather weight boxers.
logravia 6mo ago
Sure, it covers 99.9% of cases, but top elite athletes are the genetic exceptions, they are the genetic freaks. They are the top 0.0001%. You don't get to compete at the most elite levels without your body being exceptionally gifted and almost specifically shaped for the relevant sport, which inevitably means funky genetic traits and disorders, higher testosterone levels etc. I mean the word freak in the most loving and caring way possible, mind you. What does fairness mean in that context?
- hervature 6mo ago
  I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When it comes to the Olympics, it was decided a long time ago that having both men and women's events was beneficial for societal progress to have both sexes represented. This was at a time when sex=gender. Now, we recognize the difference between sex and gender but one side thinks the split of events was always based on gender whereas it was almost surely based on sex. This ruling confirms that view point.
sapphicsnail 6mo ago
This isn't a novel problem.

saalweachter 6mo ago

There are statistically around 15 women AFAB with XY chromosomes in the NCAA by those numbers (assuming no correlation between Swyer syndrome and athletic performance). There are currently around 10 openly transgender women in the NCAA. Small numbers either way.

tensor 6mo ago

Except I proposed a solution, which you ignored (I'm assuming here that I'm your "opposing side".) Also, there are a significant number of these sorts of arguments in high-level sports, probably precisely because these "0.1%" cases are exactly the ones that result in exceptional ability relative to norms. It's also curious that there is such obsession about naturally occurring genetic outliers with respect to females or gender but absolute silence about naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender. And surprise surprise the top athletes often have such outlier genetics! If you're drawing a distinction between natural genetic difference related to only gender and no other factors then sadly it's exactly a culture war, not a war based in science or fairness.

appreciatorBus 6mo ago
> naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender This is just not true. Many sports are categorized by weight for the most obvious example.
- tensor 6mo ago
  Yes. Which is what I proposed for all differences. Note that classifying by weight is not banning athletes like is happening in the olympics.
  - appreciatorBus 6mo ago
    Heavy weight boxers are banned from competing against feather weight boxers.

logravia 6mo ago

Sure, it covers 99.9% of cases, but top elite athletes are the genetic exceptions, they are the genetic freaks. They are the top 0.0001%. You don't get to compete at the most elite levels without your body being exceptionally gifted and almost specifically shaped for the relevant sport, which inevitably means funky genetic traits and disorders, higher testosterone levels etc. I mean the word freak in the most loving and caring way possible, mind you. What does fairness mean in that context?

hervature 6mo ago
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. When it comes to the Olympics, it was decided a long time ago that having both men and women's events was beneficial for societal progress to have both sexes represented. This was at a time when sex=gender. Now, we recognize the difference between sex and gender but one side thinks the split of events was always based on gender whereas it was almost surely based on sex. This ruling confirms that view point.

sapphicsnail 6mo ago

This isn't a novel problem.