Well I wasn't planning to watch the Olympics anyway...

[BillsFanNC]

A fellow biologist, who we've been repeatedly told are the only ones qualified to weigh in on this issue, gives a great recap of the history of genetic sex testing.

 

Try to follow (along with) the science.

 

 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, KDIGGZ said:

I don't know if I really care about this topic anymore. Women vote for this nonsense in overwhelming numbers. Let them deal with it

It’s never had an impact on me. I have straight cisgender boys and no daughters. It just seems so unfair for women, whatever their political leanings are, to have to compete against boys who were bad in their own leagues but now dominate against inferior competition. And it just amazes me that the “party of women” just blindly goes along with this, especially the women in that party.

[dickleyjones]

32 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

There's a karyotype that says he has XY chromosomes.

 

Other than that you're absolutely right. Zero proof.

 

where is the test?

 

just saying a karyotype is not proof

[Pokebball]

8 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

where is the test?

 

just saying a karyotype is not proof

It absolutely is proof

[BillsFanNC]

9 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

where is the test?

 

just saying a karyotype is not proof

 

 

He was banned by an international boxing authority for having an XY karyotype. He appealed the ruling and could have been re-tested. Then he withdrew the appeal.

 

That's what we know.

 

You saying there's zero proof doesn't make the above go away.

 

Get tested by an agreed upon lab with proper oversight is a really simple way to get beyond this and validate "her" gold medal.

 

And even if you don't understand the myriad of genetic tests outlined in the X thread posted above as I do....

 

There's always the friggin eye test.

 

I think they should do an SRY gene test as this is the master switch in male development. Doesn't matter if he has a uterus or what his passport says, if you have that gene then you're going to develop male characteristics and make it completely unfair to compete against XX women who do not have the SRY gene.

Edited August 10 by BillsFanNC

[The Frankish Reich]

11 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

just saying a karyotype is not proof

These Olympics cases are obviously weird (that word again!) ones.

Officials haven't been forthcoming about the Algerian boxer. So we don't know anything for sure.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that she's XY. Let's also assume that she appeared female at birth, and therefore was raised as a girl.

What we care about - what we should care about - is not whether she's XY or XX. We should care about whether her physical expression of that chromosomal status makes it appropriate for her to compete against men or to compete against women. Are we ready to say that she should not be able to compete at all? Or only compete against other so-called intersexed athletes? 

As they say, hard cases make bad law.

This is not a 20 year old XY who undergoes male-to-female transition/takes female hormones, etc. I agree that those cases are easy (to me) and that if it is a sport that requires muscle strength typically gained as post-pubescent male teenager, that person should not be competing against females.

That's not this case. 

 

Edited August 10 by The Frankish Reich

[dickleyjones]

17 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

He was banned by an international boxing authority for having an XY karyotype. He appealed the ruling and could have been re-tested. Then he withdrew the appeal.

 

That's what we know.

 

You saying there's zero proof doesn't make the above go away.

 

Get tested by an agreed upon lab with proper oversight is a really simple way to get beyond this and validate "her" gold medal.

 

And even if you don't understand the myriad of genetic tests outlined in the X thread posted above as I do....

 

There's always the friggin eye test.

 

I think they should do an SRY gene test as this is the master switch in male development. Doesn't matter if he has a uterus or what his passport says, if you have that gene then you're going to develop male characteristics and make it completely unfair to compete against XX women who do not have the SRY gene.

again, no proof. and i understand genetics as well as my education could provide, probably better than most.

 

it's one thing to say what you think is true. that's fine. but it is only what you think, not what you know. the attacks on this person are basically "i know this is a man therefore it is wrong" which is a poor argument without proof.

[dickleyjones]

22 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

These Olympics cases are obviously weird (that word again!) ones.

Officials haven't been forthcoming about the Algerian boxer. So we don't know anything for sure.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that she's XY. Let's also assume that she appeared female at birth, and therefore was raised as a girl.

What we care about - what we should care about - is not whether she's XY or XX. We should care about whether her physical expression of that chromosomal status makes it appropriate for her to compete against men or to compete against women. Are we ready to say that she should not be able to compete at all? Or only compete against other so-called intersexed athletes? 

As they say, hard cases make bad law.

This is not a 20 year old XY who undergoes male-to-female transition/takes female hormones, etc. I agree that those cases are easy (to me) and that if it is a sport that requires muscle strength typically gained as post-pubescent male teenager, that person should not be competing against females.

That's not this case. 

 

i think there is a good argument why XY is enough of a disqualifier. you may argue that means we get it wrong sometimes but that will always be the case. given that, i would rather err on the side of someone missing out vs the alternative.

 

all that said, it is a tricky issue. it's gonna take a while to get figured out.

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

again, no proof. and i understand genetics as well as my education could provide, probably better than most.

 

it's one thing to say what you think is true. that's fine. but it is only what you think, not what you know. the attacks on this person are basically "i know this is a man therefore it is wrong" which is a poor argument without proof.

 

 

Whatever.

 

Lost

[dickleyjones]

32 minutes ago, Pokebball said:

It absolutely is proof

ok let me try

 

"trisomy 13"

 

there, proven. you now have trisomy 13, im sorry.

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

Whatever.

 

Lost

compelling. 

[The Frankish Reich]

I always like to think about what we find acceptable in other contexts. It helps clarify our thoughts.

PED suspensions:

- NFL first-time positive test: enters the NFL counseling program. 2nd positive: 2 games. 3rd: 4 games.

- MLB first time positive: 180 days (half a season)

 

I'm a fan of the Colorado Rockies (ouch). The Rockies had a promising minor league relief pitcher. 99 mph fastball from an almost sidearm angle. Just needed better control. Devastating stuff. 

Tested positive for PEDs.

180 days off. Came back, had a really promising MLB debut season.

Then started to suck. Fastball clocked at 94 now. Everyone says he sacrificed velocity for command. But how do we know that 5 mph bump - the difference between devastating stuff and ordinary stuff - wasn't due to the PEDs, with the performance benefits lasting way beyond the 180 day suspension? Answer: we don't. But I have my theories. If I'm a big league GM, I'm trading these post-PED suspension guys as soon as I can, before they start to suck again.

 

So we assume, without any hard evidence, that the benefits of PEDs (evident in elevated testosterone levels) on performance can be ignored for the first time you're caught? Can result in a 4 game suspension after juicing for long enough to be caught 3 times?

 

Edited August 10 by The Frankish Reich

[Roundybout]

21 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

again, no proof. and i understand genetics as well as my education could provide, probably better than most.

 

it's one thing to say what you think is true. that's fine. but it is only what you think, not what you know. the attacks on this person are basically "i know this is a man therefore it is wrong" which is a poor argument without proof.

Welcome to the default argument of the insane right wingers of PPP!

[BillsFanNC]

14 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

ok let me try

 

"trisomy 13"

 

there, proven. you now have trisomy 13, im sorry.

compelling. 

 

Are you an international governing body capable of banning individuals from competing based on your statement alone?

 

Or would you need a test to back up your statement?

 

And if an individual appealed your decision, was offered to get another test and then withdrew their appeal what might that tell you?

 

When East German women were obviously doping in the 80s were we ever shown their test results?

 

All of the above is evidence. Its circumstantial evidence that you don't like.

 

Not very compelling.

 

 

 

 

 

[dickleyjones]

28 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Are you an international governing body capable of banning individuals from competing based on your statement alone?

 

Or would you need a test to back up your statement?

 

And if an individual appealed your decision, was offered to get another test and then withdrew their appeal what might that tell you?

 

When East German women were obviously doping in the 80s were we ever shown their test results?

 

All of the above is evidence. Its circumstantial evidence that you don't like.

 

Not very compelling.

 

 

 

 

 

i don't like or dislike the evidence you presented. it's just some of the picture. certainly you wouldn't suggest all the governing bodies involved are unbiased?

 

there is still zero proof.

 

maybe you are right. maybe you are wrong. we do not know. im starting to think your agenda is so important to you that you are unwilling to admit that.

[BillsFanNC]

19 minutes ago, dickleyjones said:

i don't like or dislike the evidence you presented. it's just some of the picture. certainly you wouldn't suggest all the governing bodies involved are unbiased?

 

there is still zero proof.

 

maybe you are right. maybe you are wrong. we do not know. im starting to think your agenda is so important to you that you are unwilling to admit that.

 

 

 

My "agenda" is that we have a human being who  has numerous physical male characteristics dominating world class female boxers while also being under suspension by an international governing body because of a reported male xy karyotype that for some reason there was no repeat test performed when offered. 

 

Again, that's what we KNOW right now. 

 

And you're rejecting all of that as zero evidence while accusing me of harboring bias.

 

Look in the mirror. 

Edited August 10 by BillsFanNC

[Doc]

An impartial medical exam and lab and radiological studies would help clear everything up. Since this is obviously an ongoing issue.

[Orlando Buffalo]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

These Olympics cases are obviously weird (that word again!) ones.

Officials haven't been forthcoming about the Algerian boxer. So we don't know anything for sure.

But let's assume for the sake of argument that she's XY. Let's also assume that she appeared female at birth, and therefore was raised as a girl.

What we care about - what we should care about - is not whether she's XY or XX. We should care about whether her physical expression of that chromosomal status makes it appropriate for her to compete against men or to compete against women. Are we ready to say that she should not be able to compete at all? Or only compete against other so-called intersexed athletes? 

As they say, hard cases make bad law.

This is not a 20 year old XY who undergoes male-to-female transition/takes female hormones, etc. I agree that those cases are easy (to me) and that if it is a sport that requires muscle strength typically gained as post-pubescent male teenager, that person should not be competing against females.

That's not this case. 

 

There is not a remotely intelligent argument to allow a man who is "trans" to compete with women. This case is  more complicated and  we need to draw a line that might be more difficult. I believe that a Y chromosome in any way should eliminate the competitor. Where is it you draw the line precisely?

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

There is not a remotely intelligent argument to allow a man who is "trans" to compete with women. This case is  more complicated and  we need to draw a line that might be more difficult. I believe that a Y chromosome in any way should eliminate the competitor. Where is it you draw the line precisely?

That may make sense. I'm not saying it doesn't. There will obviously be cases where an XY has some kind of condition that doesn't allow for typical androgen-related development, looking like a female genitally and in general body structure. I guess that's a possibility, such that it would be "unfair" on an individual sense to say you can't compete against typical females.

It may be that there is no way around using the simple chromosomal test even if it does occasionally exclude someone who really ought not be excluded, because there is no way to design any other objective test.

What I've been arguing against here is a different point: she seems not to be in any way what we think of as "transgender," and lumping her case in with those simply doesn't advance the ball. Or balls, depending on the sport.

[Pokebball]

5 minutes ago, Orlando Buffalo said:

There is not a remotely intelligent argument to allow a man who is "trans" to compete with women. This case is  more complicated and  we need to draw a line that might be more difficult. I believe that a Y chromosome in any way should eliminate the competitor. Where is it you draw the line precisely?

Lines exist anyways. They always have existed. And many have become more and more subjective, such as using a passport. There have been coed, men's and women's sports for my entire life. Lines were drawn decades ago. Title IX drew a line, back in the day when as far as I could certainly tell, things were more honest and simpler. 

 

I'm on a booster club board for a junior college and a question was posed a year ago about how a trans athlete should be counted for compliance with Title IX. No answer to date. A line that can be clearly understood needs to be drawn and consistently applied across the country. We have international bodies with different rules and protocols (there are more than the two that have been most recently involved in this boxing controversy).

 

Someone needs to explain to me how any test is more objective than a chromosomal antibody test. Why do we have to make things so difficult?

 

 

[dickleyjones]

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

 

My "agenda" is that we have a human being who  has numerous physical male characteristics dominating world class female boxers while also being under suspension by an international governing body because of a reported male xy karyotype that for some reason there was no repeat test performed when offered. 

 

Again, that's what we KNOW right now. 

 

And you're rejecting all of that as zero evidence while accusing me of harboring bias.

 

Look in the mirror. 

i reject nothing. it is part of the evidence. we know much more than that. for example, that the iba and ioc are at odds over this and much more. and more evidence beyond that. but none of it is proof, just evidence, i think you know those two things are not the same.

 

again, that doesn't mean you are wrong. but it doesn't mean you are right. we do not know the truth.