I agree this is the simplest solution to ensure equity and inclusion of all people.
“Regardless of current or past gonad scenario”
Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting
). You're going to have to try harder with your ad-hominems to support your opinions.Can current science tell with any reliability the difference between naturally produced T and artificially produced T?
That's not intended at all as an insult. Sorry if came off as such. I was just supposing that you might be unhappy with your dissonance. If I'm wrong and you aren't, more power to you...you do you....Actually I'm more than happy with my dissonance. I take things on a case-by-case basis and don't follow some political or philosophical narrative where if I believe A, then I must believe B (Crush calls it fence sitting
I'm not bugged because insults aren't a reflection of me (well unless everyone makes the same claim) but a reflection of those making the insults.
My understanding is that it can but it's expensive and difficult. The bigger issue with the ftm is their testosterone levels are akin to cis males (but they didn't go through puberty which puts them at a disadvantage re cis males). Hence the veritas can of worms about women with naturally high t, including those equivalent to males. I can see if you don't have a problem with the former (because the telos of the division is just one of categories men and women), why it would be o.k. to put ftm in the cis women's division, but again the question then is why can't a woman with low t be permitted to take a PED to raise her t for purposes of competition
I not in favor of artificially enhancing or suppressing T for participation in sport. I believe in "come as you are" from a genetic standpoint. Plus I don't think T is a reliable benchmark for the reasons state before.
We've treaded on this before. My objection to this is that while "clarity" is sometimes a valid principle, it's a poor one when it comes to rights (such as the right of a cis woman to participate on a level playing field, or the same right of the ftm or mtf transgender). Rights are concerned with those little remainders, and if we have to accommodate and bend, sometimes we accommodate. The clearest example is the disability laws and all those accessible bathrooms that go unused....we do it, even though the cost is wasteful for something infrequently used, because they have a right to go to the bathroom. Moreover, clarity is not one of the purposes of sports. Indeed, one of the problems with sports is that it is arbitrary....one tweak of the rule and a handball becomes not a handball....lower the hoop and suddenly short people get an advantage in basketball....sports is somewhat of an artificiality even the race sports like track and swimming (what distance...what start). as to "come as you are", what about glasses on a near sighted person, a kid taking hgh, an adhd kid on a stimulant, or an athlete to have a particular expensive shoe or set of golf clubs to give them an edge....all accommodations we allow. As to the t, it renders it all an arbitrary exercises...if a woman wins the race simply because she was born with an unnaturally high testosterone count, there is no virtue in that....it's why the Algerian boxer caused such consternation....it conflicts with the notion of sports being something we should strive to achieve by being the best.....it renders "being the best" without meaning.
Participation in sports is not a right. Also one person's right is sometimes an infringement of someone else's right. At the end of the day we just have a "philosophical" disagreement. I don't believe in artificial interference in sport and you do. But you're right that sports are always being artificially tinkered with, but rarely does it result in an improvement in sport. Bringing this full circle, what is the last change in the soccer rules that improved the game? I'd argue it was the change to the back pass to the keeper rule which was over 30 years ago. The continual change to the handling rules since has been a complete cluster F which has now resulted in defenders playing with there arms behind their back. The new kickoff rules in football, WTF?
Participation in sports is absolutely a right. Otherwise the entire rationale for women’s athletics collapses. It’s not as exciting as the men, even if strides have been made interest is still not the same, it’s not as lucrative as the men’s….it is “lesser”. Otherwise throw them all with the men, much less any entitlement to equivalent scholarships. These arguments were all made at the time title ix was put in place to great opposition. That’s been legally asked and answered for a generation now.
Btw the Spanish word for law is “derechos” meaning rights. Quite literally the study of conflicting rights, privileges and duties
It's not a participation right in competitive athletics because its ability dependent, but nevertheless everyone regardless of x and y has the opportunity to play in their respective x and y category given the appropriate ability. There is zero need for a 3rd category.
I love this idea.
You were the one that made the argument for clear rules but now are resorting to line drawing. I’m just pointing out the dissonance.
Clear rules and drawing a line is one in the same for reasonably minded people. Plus I'm drawing a straight line with a Sharpie and not a wobbly line in the sand with my finger.
Yes it does. It provides a place for a level playing field. It’s an accommodation like glasses or adhd meds. You made your choice so too bad so sad is not a reasonable outcome given they are entitled to that level playing field.
Btw implicit in your position is that you don’t think transitioning is a valid option to resolve the condition. Because of it is there’s no dif to glasses or stimulants.
Who else would then qualify the 3rd category? If I'm understanding you correctly it would be MTF post-puberty transitioners and xx DSD's with high T that refuse suppressants. How does that create a level playing field?
That's not remotely implicit in my position. Again please stop jumping to conclusions not in evidence. I think in some cases it is a valid option, say in the case of my son's friend. In other cases its not a valid option, as is evidence by the many individuals that have detransitioned. Gender transition surgery (actually called feminization surgery in most medical circles) is experimental and speculative in terms of its "curative" value. Vision correction is not remotely so. Again I think your relativity gauge is not calibrated.
Well at least you are owning it........
