• LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    So which is it that’s an issue? Is it sex or is it testosterone? And how do you define sex? What if someone has testosterone but isn’t responsive, in the case of people who are XY and appear to be cisfemale and are simply nonresponsive to testosterone?

    We weigh people continously.

    We aren’t asking for other parameters. Stop strawmanning. I asked for testosterone and weight for combat sports.

    Why must this fully be accurate and correct when you’re completely fine with the less precise heuristic we have currently going based on gender?

    It’s not a problem in practice because we force a false gender dichotomy that literally disqualifies these specific athletes.

    They are only “corner cases” because you define gender as red and yellow and thus leave out orange, green, and purple.

    Women athletes think a variety of things because they are a variety of people.

    There are advantages to men when the only men allowed to represent men are high testosterone and the only women allowed to represent women are low testosterone.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Did you read the article I linked? I am aware of these issues with testosterone. But this is the issue people have with men competing against women - testosterone. It’s what they do blood tests for.

        https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men

        So your solution to this issue is to be regressive and keep the bad gender heuristic which forces an arbitrary gender binary on us and excludes otherwise legitimate athletes from competing because they don’t fit this arbitrary mold? Tell me what’s ideal here. What’s fair?

          • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Okay so you’re just here to be regressive, got it.

            You cannot address any of the problems around this situation, you cannot debate a scientific answer, you do not even know what a scientific answer for this might look like, you neglect how this incorporates into a greater discussion about what we define as “ableism” (I didn’t ask ONLY about how it is different than scoliosis, but also about any other difference in biology)… Like not only are you unable to debate the science of it, which you admit, but you are also so sure I’m wrong, even though you don’t know anything about this topic.

            So I take it you’re here in bad faith.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                I didn’t change it. Aren’t we discussing the arbitrary nature of the gender binary and the intersection of biology, genetic diversity, and ability?

                I didn’t force a conversation. You are free to leave. Amd I’m pretty sure you are the one who started the confrontation.

                You won’t do research to further your knowledge on this subject because you aren’t competent enough to do so. Idk why you’re even attempting to argue at all here.

                Per the source, Ledecky beat Phelps.

                Yes, regressive like fascists and every other terrible person who can’t fathom a better world so they make us all miserable with the status quo. Thanks