d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
In a world with universal genetic testing prior to competition, someone surely could.
Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Louden Wilde
Muse
There's a new podcast being promoted by National Public Radio (NPR) here in the US on the history of sex testing in sports. I heard a preview/interview with the host on my local public radio station and was disappointed. She rightly condemns some of the practices of the past (e.g. the "nude parades") but comes to the conclusion that since that there is not one test that is infallible (for determining "who is a woman" - not clear what she means by the latter, as there were hints that she was conflating sex and gender identity), we shouldn't do it. She also stated that sex is a spectrum 
In developed countries and at the international competition level, whole exome/genome sequencing is the way to go (in combination with some unannounced checks of T/androgen levels). Sequencing costs have dropped dramatically, and software gives you the option to quickly assess variants in all the relevant genes. This will likely increasingly happen at birth in wealthier countries (as a general screen).
Unfortunate to see DSD and gender issues get conflated, but there are some cases that blur the lines (e.g. the one I mentioned here and there's the fact that some activists very much want to link the two.
In developed countries and at the international competition level, whole exome/genome sequencing is the way to go (in combination with some unannounced checks of T/androgen levels). Sequencing costs have dropped dramatically, and software gives you the option to quickly assess variants in all the relevant genes. This will likely increasingly happen at birth in wealthier countries (as a general screen).
Unfortunate to see DSD and gender issues get conflated, but there are some cases that blur the lines (e.g. the one I mentioned here and there's the fact that some activists very much want to link the two.
p0lka
Illuminator
As its women's boxing, how many were women?
p0lka
Illuminator
I suggest that changing the sports titles to 'female' and 'male', instead of 'women' and 'men' could possibly scratch that itch.
Last edited:
None of them, obviously. A woman in a boxing ring? Perish the thought!
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Four of them.
p0lka
Illuminator
Yeah it's difficult to work your way through to the truth of the matter, but i'll go with what's demonstrably correct.
In this reality sex and gender are not synonymous, open your eyes and look around.
So of the 3 choices, the middle one is the only one that comports with reality, not keen on the labelling 'woke' though.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The key term in that question hasn't yet been defined, so it would be foolhardy to attempt an answer. That said, I'm fairly certain those leagues were set aside based on sex—specifically SRY gene expression—rather than gender, so it would be pointless to answer in any event.
Last edited:
p0lka
Illuminator
It would be so much simpler if it was labelled as 'male' and 'female' sports instead of the gender labels, fewer variables to define and account for.
I don't understand why that hasn't happened yet, as it's the obvious solution to the particular problem.
Last edited:
That's anglocentric, transphobic, anti-feminist, woke, anti-woke, possibly Orwellian, and the linguists won't be none too happy neither.
So, you know, take your pick.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I think that's actually happening right now, actually, at least to a minor extent.
Here are a few examples:
https://olympics.com/en/news/female...ction-as-final-olympic-qualifying-race-begins
https://www.wbaboxing.com/boxing-ne...ght-for-the-female-welterweight-interim-title
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variet...the-sea-daisy-ridley-training-1236021874/amp/
It's my understanding that most people who say "women's sports" know they are talking about leagues set up with XX athletes in mind, even if they are too polite to emphasize that point.
JihadJane
not a camel
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2008
- Messages
- 91,247
A fourth DNA test, in Imane Khelfi's case.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I'm aware of one test in Istanbul (2022) and one in New Delhi (2023). What is the third?
Indeed. Though it's generally a matter of definition -- there clearly are two types of traits in play: those related to reproductive abilities ("sexes"), and the psychological and behavioural traits ("genders") that tend to correlate with but aren't unique to those with particular reproductive abilities.
Something from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia which illustrates and emphasizes that argument:
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
Something that Merriam-Webster, in their saner moments, more or less endorses:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
p0lka
Illuminator
But .. but,
you could keep the 'women' and 'men' categories and just make it so that you have to present as different from your sex to be eligible.
That's creating more sports categories, more choices for people, and I would watch it.
p0lka
Illuminator
Of the three choices, two of them are immediately knocked out by one single counter example of which there are many, leaving the middle one as the only one that could be possibly correct. The choices given might not be an exhaustive list though, but of the three choices, only the middle one could be possibly correct.
EDIT: also
Sex is a constant and gender is a variable. Sex is what you are when you are born and has nothing to do with abilities, it's a static what you are.
Bring on the culture.
Last edited:
Sure. I should have been more emphatic in agreeing with your "So of the 3 choices, the middle one is the only one that comports with reality, not keen on the labelling 'woke' though".
Sure. That's the nature of sexually dimorphism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
But those "behavioral or cognitive traits" -- AKA personalities -- are NOT entirely "socially constructed". That's the bit that many people -- doctrinaire feminists in particular -- have some difficulty with. Nature and nurture and they, like good communists think we're born as the proverbial blank slates.
But sex is most certainly NOT "what you are when you are born". All we have when we're born is genitalia and karyotypes, neither of which define the sexes. Technically, we don't acquire a sex until the onset of puberty. Standard biological definitions for the sexes STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
From the first link above, the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
If only there was some way to predict whether a child born with immature ova will become the one adult phenotype or the other.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
They were synonymous up until very, very recently. And calling humans "male" and "female" was considered a bit derogatory, so "women" and "men" were the preferred terms.
To rephrase... the "gender labels" weren't "gender" labels throughout the vast majority of all of our lives, they were always sex labels, just more polite.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
This is irrelevant, though. I don't care whether any of them exhibit traditional masculine behaviors and meet some social standard of "manhood". I care that they are all male human beings. And as a result of being male human beings, they have male physical traits that are of material importance when it comes to athletics.