World Athletics to require chromosome testing of athletes in women's track and field

Genetic men shouldn't be allowed to compete against genetic females unless a female body has an advantage.

For example, I wouldn't have any problem with a genetic man competing on balance beam, because they have a disadvantage due to a higher center of gravity.

Similarly, I don't have any problem with women competing on "rings" if they like.

Rather than male and female splits, perhaps there needs to be "open" and "female-only" competitions?

Are we going back to the good old age of common sense? I hope so so we can kick this nonsense into the bin of failed history.

"World Athletics to require chromosome testing of athletes in women's track and field."

And that's fair and just to women sports.

This measure depends completely on a false assumption, that chromosomes decide the phenotype. This is the reason why it was abandoned in the first place, people with the "wrong" chromosomes but without any kind of advantage will be unfairly discriminated against and the same cycle will be repeated again. A wrong/oversimplistic measure is enacted, it is demonstrated unfair, experts will demonstrate again that a valid measure has to be much more complicated in order to be valid, the measure is abolished leaving nothing in its place while a proper rule can be put in order, meanwhile people pushing for prejudices will propose the simple and wrong rule again...

Over and over...

Thank God! Finally common sense prevailing.

Have to disagree this time, virusrex. While it is indeed the case that a simple chromosome test is a far from perfect solution and that it will likely result in discrimination against some athletes, the present status quo, in which literally thousands of (mostly fully-intact) biological males have been allowed to compete against females, is demonstrably worse. The status quo represents physical danger to female athletes in some sports, a grossly unlevel playing field in many more, and threatens to undo the decades of hard work in establishing women's sports in the first place. One can sympathize with the tiny handful of cases in which the athletes prevented from competing in the female category are NOT intact male transwomen or 5-alpha reductase deficient males, but the needs of literally millions of female athletes seeking safe and fair competition outweigh them. "Perfect is the enemy of good."

DK the world of sports needs to address this. A bit of discrimination if it does not get started it cannot be improved, the incoming president, duly elected is the first female president. Hopefully she will act on fairness and not just staged camera Ops.

the present status quo, in which literally thousands of (mostly fully-intact) biological males have been allowed to compete against females, is demonstrably worse.

Which comes from:

A wrong/oversimplistic measure is enacted, it is demonstrated unfair, experts will demonstrate again that a valid measure has to be much more complicated in order to be valid, the measure is abolished leaving nothing in its place while a proper rule can be put in order, meanwhile people pushing for prejudices will propose the simple and wrong rule again...

We are at the point where "the measure is abolished leaving nothing in its place while a proper rule can be put in order", breaking the cycle would require a clear algorithm of decisions where many different factors are weighted (for example about how much advantage should be allowed) but retrograde people keep making this impossible by demonizing fairness and instead making the invalid point that everything can be decided with a simple test... which once again makes the cycle being.

What are even the test for? Born with a dick male category no algorithm needed or what happened to science have all the answers.

What are even the test for? Born with a dick male category no algorithm needed or what happened to science have all the answers.

So those individuals without male genitals but high levels of testosterone that makes them phenotypically male are ok?

That is still the problem with simple and easy "solutions", they are also very likely to be wrong as the one you suggest.

"So those individuals without male genitals but high levels of testosterone that makes them phenotypically male are ok?

That is still the problem with simple and easy "solutions", they are also very likely to be wrong as the one you suggest."

I don't know who is your God, but my God Never Ever Makes Mistakes. Unless a doctor playing god make those mistakes there are only two genders not three or one and a half.

XY - male XX - female : science.

But, yes, there are a tiny number of cases, where nature screwed up in the womb and it is not as clear cut,

and there are a greater number of cases, where some ambiguity was brought about on purpose with drugs and operations.

These persons should compete as a sub-group as part of the Paralympics. There they could compete against each other and any medal won would have been earned honestly.

Chromosomes aren't the total answer, that is certain. Some genetically female people have higher than average levels of strength chemicals in their systems - naturally.

I don't know how, if at all or greatly, someone who went through gender re-assignment has benefited from the first 14-25 yrs of their life being of a different gender in competition, even if they take suppression or additive gender hormones daily as part of their new, selected, gender. Regardless, is it up to the sports associations to pay for the research to allow outlier people the studies and proof for or against which ever side they wish to compete?

Doing something that is only an 80% solution is better than doing nothing. At least the attempt to be fair is made.

No govt should spend one cent to help a person change their gender nor to maintain that change, regardless of the situation. If they want it and want to maintain it, then the person making the choice needs to fund it or find other people (family, friends, employer) to fund it. And I wouldn't allow someone with the wrong "little bits" to enter a toilet made for the other gender until they've had surgery to make the correct "pisser apparatus" permanent.

So if they are XX but high testosterone, a-ok? XXY women are just out of luck?

theFuToday 01:13 am JST

I don't know how, if at all or greatly, someone who went through gender re-assignment has benefited from the first 14-25 yrs of their life being of a different gender in competition

Only the years since puberty, if they went through that at all.

I don't know who is your God, but my God Never Ever Makes Mistakes.

The one that made a very obvious mistake was you, easy to see the moment you can't argue how your solution could be valid and instead deflect towards completely irrelevant things.

Also, it is scientifically proved that there are not "two" genders, that external genitals are not the only thing that define genders so you are still completely wrong in your suggestion, if the mistake is not yours then whose is it?

XY - male XX - female : science.

False, choromosomes do not define gender, no scientific institution supports this claim you make.

But, yes, there are a tiny number of cases, where nature screwed up in the womb and it is not as clear cut,

No screwing up required, gender, sexual characteristics are not the clear cut thing you mistakenly believe.

and there are a greater number of cases, where some ambiguity was brought about on purpose with drugs and operations.

How much "greater"? by the inflexible dogmatic mind of the people that only want cute girls competing simple excercise is part of these things that bring ambiguity and that should be banned because it makes the females look like guys in their minds.

Doing something that is only an 80% solution is better than doing nothing. At least the attempt to be fair is made.

No, it is not, this is precisely what has been happening and leads to the never ending problem of having rules that can be demonstrated unfair, the rules are taken down because of this and no rules remain in place, and when people try to make actually fair rules, the same intransigent dogmatic people insist again in putting the simple and wrong rule since "80% of the solution is better than doing nothing" and the cycle begins once again.

The actual solution is much more complicated and requires nuances and objective discussions to avoid being unfair, but the people that have as a purpose to segregate something they don't like oppose this solutions since they don't care about fairness, only about making people they consider aberrations stop participating, so making it impossible for some females to participate is not a problem in their minds.

DNA is a major determinant of physical strength. Continuing to ignore this would only further destroy women's sports.

DNA is a major determinant of physical strength

Except when it is not. And since the argument can be refuted with examples then it automatically makes it an invalid basis for a rule.

Excercise is a major determinant of physical strength, according to you this would make it a perfect target to discriminate who can compete or not, those "girls" that do too much of this would not be allowed, it makes them look ugly after all, right? ignoring this would destroy women sports for sure.

Male bone structure is male bone structure whether or not a male did all that weird stuff to become a faux “woman”. That in itself is a huge and unfair advantage.

That in itself is a huge and unfair advantage.

But that is not necessarily dependent on chromosomes, so this would not be an argument to defend the testing as valid. I mean, stature is also a huge and "unfair" advantage, it is also something that can be independent of chromosomal differences, should this be also tested and get participants banned?

Then again, a proper discussion for each sport about which characteristics can influence competency, how much of those differences can be considered fair, etc. etc. But the people that keep pushing to make women's sports pure don't want to take this appropriate approach and instead push for simplistic solutions even if that get participants without any unfair advantage banned as well.

Excercise is a major determinant of physical strength

Yeah, but that is something that each person controls, unlike DNA.

according to you ...

Ah, you continue to completely misrepresent people's opinions. That's the only way you can argue against them.

Yeah, but that is something that each person controls, unlike DNA.

Which again reinforces the point that overly simplistic explanations are invalid, anybody could just "drink" DNA, so that would obviously "equalize" the situation. Not to count that your argument is still disqualifying people that are too tall, short, strong, fast, etc. etc. compared with others because of their genes.

In reality it is not the DNA but the phenotype the one that causes differences or advantages, and not all advantages are considered unfair even if important (like being left handed in some sports). So the opinion is wrong in two parts, where it equalizes genotype with phenotype, and where it equalizes differences with unfair advantages.

Ah, you continue to completely misrepresent people's opinions

I am making clear why the terribly oversimplified argument you make is invalid by pointing out other examples where it applies and that are much more easily recognized as wrong. There is no misrepresentation, that is what you wrong, that is what it means, if you mean something different then the way to solve that problem is to write something correct in the first place, for example by adding all the relevant details that are pertinent (which in this case would make your point too clearly invalid).

Yeah, but that is something that each person controls, unlike DNA.

Which again reinforces the point that overly simplistic explanations are invalid, anybody could just "drink" DNA, so that would obviously "equalize" the situation. Not to count that your argument is still disqualifying people that are too tall, short, strong, fast, etc. etc. compared with others because of their genes.

What the ... are you talking about? The article is about chromosome testing to ensure that males do not compete in women's sports. It's not about complete genome sequencing to rule out any possible genetic advantage.

What the ... are you talking about?

People making overly simplistic reasons to justify an invalid test.

The article is about chromosome testing to ensure that males do not compete in women's sports.

Which is wrong and invalid since it would discriminate against people that have no advantage, and would not eliminate people that have clear advantages that could validly be called unfair, that is the reason why it was abandoned in the first place.

It's not about complete genome sequencing to rule out any possible genetic advantage.

Which is why the exaggeratedly simplistic argument is wrong, since it makes the false argument that genotype is the same as phenotype, and that any phenotypical difference that can be linked to a genetic difference could be "unfair" and therefore reason enough to disqualify a person

Wick's pencilToday 07:57 am JST

DNA is a major determinant of physical strength. Continuing to ignore this would only further destroy women's sports.

Do tell how that tiny little y chromosome encodes the complete human body. I mean there is nothing scientific that says that. In fact science says the opposite.