Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 12 of 67 FirstFirst ... 210111213142262 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 663
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    west of Westeros
    Posts
    61,703
    trackCanuck/beebee

    if you want to have a personal pissing match, please take it off line.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, CO
    Posts
    7,616
    Quote Originally Posted by CookyMonzta View Post
    In other words, her natural testosterone levels are well beyond the IAAF's 4:1 T/E limit, yes? Or am I missing something else here?
    I would assume in some elevated testosterone range they would say, oh, looks like youíre doping, check the B sample. Then I would assume in a higher range, defined in one of these threads somewhere, they would say, oh, there may be more than doping going on here. Letís check your chromosomes and a pelvic ultrasound, please. Then, oh, look at this, XY and undescended testicles.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by DrJay View Post
    I would assume in some elevated testosterone range they would say, oh, looks like youíre doping, check the B sample. Then I would assume in a higher range, defined in one of these threads somewhere, they would say, oh, there may be more than doping going on here. Letís check your chromosomes and a pelvic ultrasound, please. Then, oh, look at this, XY and undescended testicles.
    Urine and blood samples are routinely DNA-profiled (prevents accidental or deliberate swaps with somebody else's body fluids), so the chromosome information is presumably already in the database before they start any additional investigations of any particular athlete.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by CookyMonzta View Post
    In other words, her natural testosterone levels are well beyond the IAAF's 4:1 T/E limit, yes?
    That's for a different reason. The T/E ratio test is for detecting artificial sources of testosterone, as those can put the natural ratio out of whack. With athletes competing as women, they're also going to measure their absolute T-levels to see if they're above the 5 nmol/L limit for natural testosterone in women.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, CO
    Posts
    7,616
    Got it. Thanks.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by trackCanuck View Post
    I have read commentary by many gay and trans writers as this issue has unfolded over the past few years. Every time I read the same thing : this is a horrendous abuse of human rights, it's racist, sexist, this-ist and that-ist, yada yada, yippidy day. You know nothing about my true colors, because I have told you nothing. And I'm not your 'son', old girl. More of the same from the poster who once opined that Wilma Rudolph may have been on steroids.
    Your frustrations and prejudices are showing once again son. And I mean, really, what on earth has Rudolph got to do with this discussion? How bizarre you'd try that one!

    As you - and some of the others that think this is only a scientific debate - should really know, individuals concerned with social commentary and sociological issues are going to have opinions here. This is because this IS beyond just 'biological' because it is not about medicine, but it is also sociological, because it is about creating new eligibility rules for females. They are attempting to define, within their own sport, what 'female' is, and it is not a definition that is agreed within the expert medical community. So sociologists, anthropologists, social commentators, politicians and other scientists - and sports people (they're non biologists too!) - are going to debate this, because their disciplines are concerned with the development of scientific knowledge, of health, of law, of gender...all things this new ruling impacts.

    So you're just going to have to accept that intelligent, learned people are going to argue that this is 'racist, sexist, this-ist, that'ist, yad yada, yippidy day' because they see the bigger picture and are not narrow minded.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    beyond help
    Posts
    12,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriella2 View Post
    Your frustrations and prejudices are showing once again son. And I mean, really, what on earth has Rudolph got to do with this discussion? How bizarre you'd try that one!

    As you - and some of the others that think this is only a scientific debate - should really know, individuals concerned with social commentary and sociological issues are going to have opinions here. This is because this IS beyond just 'biological' because it is not about medicine, but it is also sociological, because it is about creating new eligibility rules for females. They are attempting to define, within their own sport, what 'female' is, and it is not a definition that is agreed within the expert medical community. So sociologists, anthropologists, social commentators, politicians and other scientists - and sports people (they're non biologists too!) - are going to debate this, because their disciplines are concerned with the development of scientific knowledge, of health, of law, of gender...all things this new ruling impacts.

    So you're just going to have to accept that intelligent, learned people are going to argue that this is 'racist, sexist, this-ist, that'ist, yad yada, yippidy day' because they see the bigger picture and are not narrow minded.
    This monologue is exactly why there is hardly any common ground in the debate.
    Those of us promoting biology do not want to make any rules how these individuals want to live their lives. We do not want to define what is female. We want to exclude individuals that may look like Jane, but have genetic composition/internal anatomy/physiology of Tarzan from the women's athletic competition. Nothing else.
    Last edited by Pego; 05-03-2019 at 11:28 AM.
    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
    by Thomas Henry Huxley
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego View Post
    This monologue is exactly why there is hardly any common ground in the debate.
    Those of us promoting biology do not want to make any rules how these individuals want to live their lives. We do not want to define what is female. We want to exclude individuals that may look like Jane, but have genetic composition/internal anatomy/physiology of Tarzan from the women's athletic competition. Nothing else.
    Well said
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, CO
    Posts
    7,616
    I don't care if Castor Semenya wears a dress or men's work pants. I don't care if she marries a man or a woman. I don't care which bathroom she uses. I don't care if she and her spouse have or adopt a child. I DO want that XX women with typical female-range testosterone levels don't have to compete against XY persons with male-range testosterone levels.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    from an IP that never sent jazz that PM, never !
    Posts
    6,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriella2 View Post
    ..
    As you - and some of the others that think this is only a scientific debate - should really know, individuals concerned with social commentary and sociological issues are going to have opinions here. This is because this IS beyond just 'biological' because it is not about medicine, but it is also sociological, because it is about creating new eligibility rules for females. They are attempting to define, within their own sport, what 'female' is, and it is not a definition that is agreed within the expert medical community. So sociologists, anthropologists, social commentators, politicians and other scientists - and sports people (they're non biologists too!) - are going to debate this, because their disciplines are concerned with the development of scientific knowledge, of health, of law, of gender...all things this new ruling impacts.

    So you're just going to have to accept that intelligent, learned people are going to argue that this is 'racist, sexist, this-ist, that'ist, yad yada, yippidy day' because they see the bigger picture and are not narrow minded.
    The obvious biological categories have nothing to do with social commentary. For years it was understood that female was a biological category. We understood that humans were mammals and that they are different according to their biological sex. We have established competitions based on biological sex because the two sexes are so different in terms of athleticism. We have not allowed people to compete in the female category if they were not XX females with normal hormone levels.

    We have removed athletes from competition with females for almost 100 years because they were not normal females. This is only about biology. To change the definition of "female" now is quite a tall order to undertake. And what will be the result? Well we see a glimpse already in the last few years of what the wrecking crew has in mind for us: For every gender confused (biologically XY person that wants to compete among XX females) or intersex person you include you are making it nearly impossible for an actual biological XX female to stand atop the podium at an elite competition.

    So part of the problem is that it really is about politicians, and social engineers and commentators. They want to engineer society into a future that works for them. Unfortunately that future demands that we will live in a world where the most foundational, organic and fundamental essence of human life, that of the XX female will be not be celebrated on the top podium at elite female competitions. Competitions that were specifically designed to celebrate the XX female. That would be an Orwellian dystopia.
    Last edited by user4; 05-03-2019 at 02:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •