Nuntius wrote:G R E Y wrote:NO. ANY point about trans or anything to do with trans issues is NOT my point.
It was not your point, I agree. But it was the point of some of the people whose tweets you posted in this thread.
G R E Y wrote:But thanks for clarifying the point about motives, whose, etc. If I happened to mention it or mention the point of others talking about sex-based competition it is just that. If you find Dawkins' words displeasing fine. But their science knowledge and knowing that XY should not be competing with XX is hard to refute. Dismissing Hinton, Dawkins, Hooven only makes it seem like the science is ignored because it can't be refuted. How about focusing on their WORK.
I'm not trying to dismiss their work as a whole. I am simply saying that since this is a topic in which they have a demonstrable bias, that bias should be factored in when evaluating their positions.
Because one's bias definitely affects their work.G R E Y wrote:Hooven's tweet is exceptional and informative, relevant to the specifics of DSD. Hinton's research is peer reviewed. And it actually pains me to include Dawkins because there isn't much philosophically I agree with him on (his stance on religion is infuriating) but again his knowledge on the topic of sexes and their differences is sound. These you cannot dispute even as they are dismissed because of their associations. The work stands on its own merit. You can try to discredit WHO says it, but that does not blot out WHAT they are saying. And what they are saying is that XY and their DSDs have an advantage over XX.
Once again, I'm not doubting their knowledge of the subject. What I am saying is that their biases can influence their opinions and can thus lead them to faulty results.Are the opinions that they hold on this subject the scientific consensus on the topic?
Because, for what is worth, the World Medical Association is against sex verification in sports. Here's a press release from the WMA urging physicians to not implement the IAAF's rules:
The World Medical Association has called on physicians around the world to take no part in implementing new eligibility regulations for classifying female athletes.
The regulations from the International Association of Athletics Federations require women athletes with specific differences in sex development to medically reduce their natural blood testosterone level if they wish to continue racing as women in a few restricted events.
The DSD (Differences of Sexual Development) rule, introduced last year, followed the case of South African runner Caster Semenya, the world and Olympic champion, who has had to undergo gender verification testing to confirm her eligibility to compete in the women’s division.
Next week, the Court of Arbitration for Sport is due to issue a decision on the IAAF regulations.
At its Council meeting in Santiago, Chile, today, the WMA demanded the immediate withdrawal of the regulations. It said they constitute a flagrant discrimination based on the genetic variation of female athletes and are contrary to international medical ethics and human rights standards.
Following an initiative by the South African Medical Association the WMA fears the regulations would constrain the athletes concerned to take unjustified medication, not based on medical need, in order for them to be allowed to compete, and accordingly require physicians to prescribe such medication.
It is in general considered as unethical for physicians to prescribe treatment for excessive endogenous testosterone if the condition is not recognized as pathological. The WMA calls on physicians to oppose and refuse to perform any test or administer any treatment or medicine which is not in accordance with medical ethics, and which might be harmful to the athlete using it, especially to artificially modifying blood constituents, biochemistry or endogenous testosterone.
WMA President Dr. Leonid Eidelman said: ‘We have strong reservations about the ethical validity of these regulations. They are based on weak evidence from a single study, which is currently being widely debated by the scientific community. They are also contrary to a number of key WMA ethical statements and declarations, and as such we are calling for their immediate withdrawal’.
https://www.wma.net/news-post/wma-urges-physicians-not-to-implement-iaaf-rules-on-classifying-women-athletes/I am interested in what the scientific consensus is on the subject matter. Based on the little I've read (because, again, I'm not an expert when it comes to medical issues), it doesn't look like there's a scientific consensus on this yet.
G R E Y wrote:By the way, gender critical views are protected in law.
I am singling that part out because I wanted to make a separate point about it. Yes, gender-critical views are protected in law. Every expression of a political ideology is protected in law. Expressing support for national socialism, for example, is protected in law.
That does not mean that people cannot disagree with those stated views. That does not mean that those (or any other) political views are beyond reproach. Expressions of political ideology are protected indeed, the government cannot take away your right to express those opinions but people do absolutely have the right to disagree with those opinions and they do have the right to not like those opinions and do not accept them as valid.
G R E Y wrote:To that end, yes you are consistent about Semenya but do you dispute that CS has a DSD specific to males only and therefore should not be running in the female category? It shouldn't be the case that socialization/passports/birth certificates trump biological advantage in sports categorization. Another open category? Fine. But females who went through female puberty are getting pummeled and beaten in races and results to the podium.
Once again, I'm fine with whatever solution is agreed upon by those who have actual expertise on the subject matter. I'm never going to pretend that I'm an expert on a topic I know little about. On topics I know little about, I have no qualms about trusting those who do know more than me.
For what is worth, Margaret Wambui, one of the athletes that has been hurt by the IAAF's rulings has suggested that World Athletics introduces a third category, in order to include intersex people.
Here's an article about it:
https://www.bbc.com/sport/africa/57239439"It would be good if a third category for athletes with high testosterone was introduced - because it is wrong to stop people from using their talents," Wambui told BBC Sport Africa.
The sport's governing body, World Athletics, says it has no plans to introduce such a category and will stick to its current classifications of men's and women's events.
The idea of a third category in athletics has been floated before, external, but Wambui is the first athlete to express outright support for the suggestion.
"We would be the first people to compete in that category - so we can motivate others who are hiding their condition," she said.
"We could show them that it is not their fault, that this is how they were created, and that they've done nothing wrong."
So, yes, at least one of the athletes wants a third category. Sadly, World Athletics doesn't seem keen on the idea.
G R E Y wrote:And it's the same patterns with IBA. Discredit IBA (and I'm not disputing the criticism of the organization), ok but that does not follow to automatically therefore ignore the tests, independent though they are said to be, even though the results themselves have yet to be refuted by the boxers themselves, even though I haven't read about those results themselves being questioned. And so while each boxer may have been raised as girls, the XX failed test is still lingering there. It's a huge issue that is easily verified or disputed but the parties involved refuse to require (IOC) or volunteer (athletes) clearing them up.
Allow me to answer this part along with the following post (since they essentially broach the same topics):
G R E Y wrote:Nuntius wrote:
So, can someone view the results of these tests and independently verify and corroborate their results?
Now THAT is an excellent question and I would find is super suspect if it couldn't be answered. I also don't know what to make of both boxers either not appealing or dropping the appeal. The murkiness should ALL be clarified.
It is exactly due to the fact that this question has yet to be answered that I'm not willing to take the IBA's word for it. I mean, you can even look at the IBA's latest statement. They do mention when the tests happened but they do not mention what those tests actually were. There's no mention of XY chromosomes. As JDR said, there's no real way to know what those tests actually were.
As for the boxers not appealing, my guess would be that since the IBA is collapsing and about to be replaced by World Boxing, it's possible that they simply didn't consider it important to spend so much money on (Olympics boxers aren't exactly rich).
I do agree that the murkiness should be clarified.
G R E Y wrote:So I say again: IOC must bring back cheek swab sex tests. Athletes should compete in the sex categories they are biologically proven to belong to. And if another open category is necessary then it should be created. This is truly inclusive, fair, and safe.
As I said before, I'm all for a third category if the athletes desire it.
That said, I will say that the "biologically proven to belong to" part of your post isn't that simple. Especially when it comes to intersex people, it's not exactly easy to prove where someone belongs to.
