IOC to ban transgender women from all female Olympic events

[Unknownparadox]

The drawing of hate doesn't need any particular reason, just the flavor of the day/week/month/year target.

That's another nice deflection.

[putnam6]

So what you're basically saying is that transgender women aren't banned because they can compete in the men's division?

Yeah, that's gonna work well.

Respectfully, nor what was tried during the Biden Admin the last 4 years "work well" or we wouldnt be having the conversation.

[quintessentone]

So I missed the part where the IOC claimed they would also be banning cisgendered women with higher testosterone levels. But if we look closer at the wording, it appears they will be testing all athletes but mostly looking to ban intersex athletes, not cisgender women.

"Sources reportedly told the outlet that Thornton’s presentation “stated that scientific evidence showed there were physical advantages to being born male that remained with athletes, including those who had taken treatment to reduce testosterone levels.” The new policy is also “likely to cover DSD [Differences of Sex Development] — those who were raised as girls from birth but have male chromosomes and male levels of testosterone.” This latter addendum would cover athletes like Imane Khelif, a boxer who made headlines at the most recent Olympic games."

Olympics Move to Ban Trans Women and Cis Female Athletes With "Male Levels of Testosterone" | Them

ETA: Just diving deeper into what are 'male' chromosomes.

"So if chromosomes don’t tell the full story, and if bodies don’t always follow the rules, then what is sex?The truth is, sex is a label, a rough attempt to describe what someone’s body might be like at birth.

It’s full of assumptions, and it doesn’t take into account how people grow, change, or understand themselves. It certainly doesn’t dictate someone’s gender, that’s something only the person themselves can know."

"We need to stop believing that sex is fixed, binary, or obvious. It’s not. It never has been. People are more complex than that, and always have been, and recognising that will help in the current fight for understanding of gender identity."

Why XX and XY Chromosomes Don’t Tell the Full Story of Sex | GenderGP

I really don't see how the IOC can get it right without proper empirical evidence to be had from repeatable studies and more directed and wider reaching research.

---

"Setting fair regulations for top female athletes that have naturally higher testosterone levels Top performing female athletes are more likely to have naturally occurring higher testosterone levels, which sporting regulations should take into account, according to findings to be presented in Lyon, at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting, ECE 2019. The researchers show that top female athletes are more likely to have higher testosterone levels and mild disorders, as well as more severe and rarer conditions that increase testosterone levels. These findings suggest that higher testosterone levels can enhance physical performance in women, to levels more comparable to male physiology, and raises questions on how to ensure fairness of competition in women’s sport."

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/kjaok...leathletes

[SoTaxMe]

I cannot even fathom how we are still having this conversation.  Men are men, and women are women.  And neither should have to compete against the other sex.  Forty years ago, if this was said, that person would be considered mentally unstable.  And from my perspective today, transexuals are certainly unstable in my mind.  The simplest of mental thinking is first to realize you are a man, or a woman.  If a person cannot figure that out, nothing else is accepted as reasonable by the great majority of people, except by the few percent of the population that are also mentally unstable.

Not trying to be an a** here, but seriously....

73's to all

[Maxmars]

I cannot even fathom how we are still having this conversation.  ...

the few percent of the population that are also mentally unstable.

Not trying to be an a** here, but seriously....

73's to all

I know we tend to use the word "ill" to describe inconceivable choices.

But I can't agree to the word, as it is only "ill" form a societal point of view...
and even that former consensus is yielding to counter pressure.

While I may not be able to 'feel' to understand... I know that more often than not,
contextually speaking, the complaint takes the form of 'social' indicators...

I allow scientist to define disease by symptom.  This doesn't feel like a symptom...
It doesn't even feel like a sickness of the individual, but one of society.  How we treat
each other is the measure...

I respect your take... and even embrace some of it... but something about this tells
me that the word 'ill' is hyperbolic... making more of it than is pertinent, in a way that
only speaks to the complaint.

But it's not added as a counter to your comments.  Just a reaction.

In the end, it is kind of crazy that we are still fighting about someone else's life
choices... given all else is pretty much equal.

[SoTaxMe]

All true Maxmars.  It is very hard for older folk to absorb this distortion of reality that they grew up understanding that there was no differentiation between men and women, except that they were all only men and women.  And in those days, there was no gray area between the two sexes.  There was common sense back in those days.  And I yearn for the past days of common sense.  I always stood up and fought for women treated badly in those days.  It was called Chivalry...  A long-lost honor among men and respected by women in those days.  But I enjoyed doing it.  Chivalry was highly respected among both men and women.  I just do not see it displayed in these days.

Devolution of society has now become the norm.

73's to all

[Maxmars]

All true Maxmars.  It is very hard for older folk to absorb this distortion of reality that they grew up understanding that there was no differentiation between men and women, except that they were all only men and women.  And in those days, there was no gray area between the two sexes.  There was common sense back in those days.  And I yearn for the past days of common sense.  I always stood up and fought for women treated badly in those days.  It was called Chivalry...  A long-lost honor among men and respected by women in those days.  But I enjoyed doing it.  Chivalry was highly respected among both men and women.  I just do not see it displayed in these days.

Devolution of society has now become the norm.

73's to all

I miss chivalry as well... it even had a place between men... especially when it was about or towards a women... the display of honor was welcomed... until it became the punch-line of today's joke.

Now, even the attempt is a trigger for virtue signaling activists to begin judgmental crowing...

[SoTaxMe]

I view "triggering" as a mental condition for those that use that phrase cannot accept reality of the world around them.  If they claim they are Triggered, those people, in my opinion, are not capable of accepting the reality of the world around them.  I understand and accept that they are not able to deal with the reality in the world around them.  Many people want a world outside of the reality we currently live in.  

If we get down to tacks, I too am triggered by people claiming they are triggered by the thinking of our elders that born them and paid to raise them with all their financial assets that could have been reserved for those parent's retirements.    Do these kids today have no shame?

The term "Triggering" is simply a disagreement of political thinking.  If anybody feels "Triggered", just go to the voting booth, and make your case known.  But please do not cry about feeling left out if they do not even vote.

73's to all

[DBCowboy]

The trans movement is trying to normalize a mental condition where the individual "thinks" they are in the wrong body.

That is the classic definition of a mental condition where the mentality is the issue.

[Maxmars]

The trans movement is trying to normalize a mental condition where the individual "thinks" they are in the wrong body.

That is the classic definition of a mental condition where the mentality is the issue.

Maybe we could argue the point of my contention.

"Mental condition" seems radically predestined and constrained to a framework of "medical assessment"

I wonder if all the contextually relevant minority social classes actually consider themselves "sick."

And project the image and language of "illness" upon what, at the very least they proclaim is 
"normal" for them... reeks of a "normalcy" bias of your own.

The aberrations and frictions produced SOCIALLY seems a relevant factor in the response it
has very clearly evoked.

If we dare to validate the assumption that these people are not free to be whom the feel they are,
how can we ever possibly be free ourselves, or our children?

(How's that for a faux-gauntlet... you big bully  )