Interesting. Breast implants following mastectomies are generally covered by insurance even though they are not considered medically necessary and are in fact considered a possible complication. In other cases, breast implants are considered elective cosmetic surgery. Assuming a mastectomy is medically successful in treating the underlying pathology, why do we justify the additional step of providing a prosthetic purely for aesthetic value?
It is a complete answer. Thomas wasn't allowed to compete in the women's category because "women" refers to gender. Thomas was allowed to because the rules specify how to qualify for the category, and Thomas meets the requirements of those rules at the time. Those exact same rules could be used regardless of the label for the category. Conversely, the NCAA has updated their rules and now Thomas would no longer qualify. They did not need to change the category label to exclude Thomas. They needed to change the rules.
At this point I'm convinced the confusion is performative, and requires no further input from me. I just don't get postmodern "art".
Boob implants to make you feel better about yourself cuz u think your boobs are too small is very different than breast implants post mastectomy, radiation and chemo. Even you can see the difference.
Have you read the link you posted? They are clearly updating their rules to differentiate sex from gender? I think because it makes it easier to define.
Are you doing an exit right?
Do they? Gender might be a spectrum blah blah but sex? Demonstrably not correct.
How, exactly?
Pretend I can't, and explain it to us.
Oh, absolutely. This particular merry-go-round is all yours.
You are wrong (I'm sensing a pattern). They are updating the rules because the Trump administration has made it clear that Title IX refers to sex and not gender, they will start enforcing it on that basis, and ◊◊◊◊ will hit the fan if the NCAA doesn't fall in line. They don't care about the ease of defining anything, that has absolutely nothing to do with this change. They made this change because someone with the power to do so basically forced them to.
Nothing here got "fixed", not in the sense of ending the conflict. This handed victory to the side that wants to exclude males from women's sports. That's an outcome I wanted, but I'm under no illusion that my goal is universally shared. Those who want to allow males in women's sports do not want this outcome, and will work to undo it. Renaming the category as "female sports" wouldn't satisfy them either.
No, its kinda tone deaf and a bit misogynistic to not understand the difference. Clearly this is a major one.
I asked for an explanation, not an insult. I was kind enough to explain my reasoning.
It was your choice to analogize gender-affirming care for minors in terms of elective medical care. You chose that specific example. Let's continue exploring it.
Or breast reduction for cis teen boys who grow breasts.
No, its not the topic of the thread.
Yeah, that is within the realm of purely elective.
Then report it as off-topic. It was the analogy you brought up to make your point, so it's pretty disingenuous of you now to try to claim it's off topic.
Go ahead and create a new topic.
No. You raised this example here. I challenged it here. You can defend it here.
I am happy to defend my position in a new thread that is devoted to that topic.