A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Horseshit headline. There isn't a genetic test that "reveals biological sex" because biological sex is not strictly genetic. That's why they stopped doing genetic tests in the 1980s.
The headline should read "Competitors will participate in performative pseudoscience to appease bigots."
I'm honestly confused about what you're asserting here. For my daughter, they did a blood test on my wife in order to tell us that we're having a daughter instead of a son. Doesn't that mean that there IS in fact a genetic test that "reveals biological sex"?
Looks like it's time to pull out the chart again...
The test is for the SRY gene, which may not be active on a Y gene, among other things. There are 2 or 3 points on that chart that are relevant to your question.
Thanks! That picture is sure to come in handy at some point.
I want to second the helpfulness of this. Thank you!
So there's a relatively miniscule fraction of people who have unexpected outcomes that you wouldn't expect based on their genetics, e.g due to some unexpected hormonal activity during fetal development.
For almost every birth, the biological concept of sex is a straightforward conclusion from genetics, so, by and large, a genetic test is accurate. But there have been cases that never got genetic tests and from all assessments were biologically female, but find out later they had XY. Maybe because they never hit puberty, or while trying to diagnose infertility, but something drove a deeper look.
FYI, Intersex people (those born with nonbinary sex characteristics such as sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, hormonal patterns and/or chromosomal patterns) are approximately 1.7% of the general population.
By comparison, red hair occurs at similar rates, and accounts for between 1 - 2% of the general population.
When you consider how many people with red hair you may have met in your life, on average, you have also met a similar number of intersex people, whether you knew it at the time or not.
But that's why we don't let people with red hair compete in sports either.
/s
The 1.7% figure is generally considered inaccurate, with most of that 1.7% being anomolous, but not out-right counter to the genotypic sex. LOCAH can cause infertility/reduced menstrual cycles as well as excessive body hair or balding in women, but wouldn't generally be considered phenotypically male. The second biggest one is a male having their urethra open in the wrong spot, which while anomolous, is certainly not going to make someone think they should be considered to be sexed female just because their penis has the hole in the wrong place.
The syndromes more like one would expect, like AIS, amounts to somewhere around 0.02% to 0.05%.
I appreciate you sharing that information!
I had learned the first piece of information from a professional training led by a recognized expert on sex and gender diversity. It sounds like you are also well-informed on the topic, though, and I am always interested in learning more.
I hope we can agree in our discussion that these distinctions are regarding traits and experiences which, as you said, are "...going to make someone think they should be considered to be sexed..." in a particular way.
What a privilege it is for me, as a cisgender person, to discuss the philosophy of the sexual classification of other people; and to air my thoughts publicly about how other people should understand their own bodies, or be allowed to participate in their own lives.
That was pretty much from Wikipedia, so I'm not innately that aware, just felt like reading the article and summarizing.
When it comes to sports and gender, it seems kind of weird to me that foe the most part we only care about that one biological distinction as a discriminating factor when there's so many other biological advantages/disadvantages in play.
That "relatively miniscule fraction" is over-represented in sports, as the hormonal edge cases of humanity can end up being stronger/faster/bigger than the typical humans.
Possibly true, but it would be good to have a source for that.
But even if true, what genetic factors should and shouldn't count? If someone is clearly female to all observers but happens to have XY genes, how is that different from an XX female who has an abnormally high amount of testosterone but still appears female for all intents and purposes?
I'm basically saying it's a complicated problem that laymen like us without specialized knowledge should consider very carefully and possibly defer to experts' opinions.
Well frankly, there's a whole can of worms to be had about how people should be categorized. A different league for distinct height ranges? Different leagues based on ACTN3? There's a whole bunch of uneven biological factors that competitors had no control over, should gender be the only one so broadly recognized?
How old is your daughter?
Will the men also be subjected to gender testing?
No. We are only subjecting women to uncomfortable, humiliating shit so that we can isolate and torture minorities as much as possible.
Of course not, because no one AFAB could ever compete with a real man in anything ever, so there's no point because the silly little transmen will never be able to measure up. /s
It might be fun to be the doctor giving the confirmation. Like, "congratulations person, you have met the minimum requirements to be recognized as a male competitor in the sport competition."
The men would like it too much.
🤖 THIS IS THE GENITAL POLICE. PLEASE REMOVE YOUR UNDERWEAR AND SUBMIT FOR EXAMINATION. FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL RESULT IN DENIAL OF ACCESS TO ALL BATHROOMS ON THE PREMISES AND A REPORT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GENDER CONFORMITY ENFORCEMENT. 🤖
By that definition all trans-men would be eligible to compete in the women’s competition and would result in a man beating up a woman… the very same fucking thing that this is about.
As a trans woman — Sports is such a contentious topic for me.
On the one hand, I want us to be treated fairly and not separated from our cisgender sisters.
On the other hand, male puberty is a motherfucker and can absolutely give real, permanent athletic advantages that can never be fully reversed.
That said if a trans woman went on blockers and never went through male puberty, I see no reason to stop her from competing.
People are so polarized on this. No one allows any space for details and nuance, but those things matter just as much as the broader principles and ethics of the issue.
As a cis straight woman, let me just say. Welcome to the sisterhood. Also those who did go through male puberty are at a huge disadvantage in several women’s sports; so this whole thing always was inconsiderate.
So when do the men get their genitals inspected?
In fairness, no one cares if a women wants to compete against the men generally. But yeah. Still dumb.
Oh and the guys would probably be all for it. They be bragging the whole time no matter what they're packing.
You can be pendantic if you like, but it adds nothing to the discussion. That was litterally last century.
Oh and the guys would probably be all for it. They be bragging the whole time no matter what they're packing.
Like guys who drive big trucks... Guys who like to fight are likely compensating for something. I don't think they want people looking 🤣
One common feature of top athletes is the belief that they are the best in every way. When it comes to boxing, they say most never do as well after the first time they get KOed because thier illusion of being the best is shattered.
Woman want to play sports? That's a probin'. For your protection
Sky News is trash. Surely a better publication has covered this story.
