Slashdot Mirror
How To Prove Someone Is Female?
krou writes "Caster Semenya won the 800m at the World Athletics Championship in blistering style, leaving her competitors in the dust, but she has been thrown into the midst of a scandal amidst claims that she's not really a woman. According to the many press reports, she's believed to shave, is flat chested, has a very masculine physique, previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing. Questions about her gender have dogged her entire career. Previously, acceptance that she is a women relied on simple inspection of female genitals. But now the IAAF claim that they want to conduct further tests to see if 'she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' An IAAF spokesmen noted that 'The [testing] process was started after Semenya made her startling breakthroughs — a 25-second improvement at 1500m and eight seconds at 800m, just some weeks ago.' I'm curious what the Slashdot community thinks: what can be considered proof of someone being male or female? Is it simply a case of having the right genitals, or are there other criteria that should be used? Is the IAAF right in claiming that someone should be prevented from competing because they have a rare medical or genetic advantage?"
... and see how it pans out.
To test if someone is female or not, just ask them to go out with a geek. If she says yes, then she can't be a female.
I doubt most people here would have experience with that.
(sorry, just a bad joke.)
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
I would think that a genetic test would prove whether or not she was.. well... a she.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
If you can make love to her, then she is a woman (provided that you know where you put your willy in)...
As subject says. If there is a "Y" cromosome, well, you have a male then...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
"she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' "
What kind of bullshit is this? Your genetics are 80% of the winning. Personally, I was born with messed up feet so I have always known that I wouldn't be the sprinting world champion. The fact that this woman(because that's what she is) has the better genetic profile to win these kinds of races is to her advantage and the people who didn't win are to accept that or play another game.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Everyone competing in IAAF competitions should be fat, lazy, nonathletic, slobs. Otherwise its unfair to all the fat, lazy, nonathletic slobs who just cant compete.
One reason I would never hope to be rich and in the spot light is stuff like this. Ask Richard Gere how long shit like this can follow you. If it its true it is a pretty personal outting.
If you ever posted here, you know you are not a REAL female. You may even look like one, but you know, deep inside, you have big question mark lingering. Don't you!
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Kick them in the nuts really hard. If they don't fold over in pain and whimper an octave higher, they're female.
Table-ized A.I.
I think slashdot should start with the correct definitions, being a technical community and all: Sex is, Gender does. Second, Slashdot of all places should know that the two are correlations, not causations. And lastly, I'd like to believe that as a community that espouses scientific values and intelligent discourse, the answer should be obvious:
You can't.
Life is full of delicious ambiguity, and people assume that two polar opposites (male and female) have nothing in between. But life isn't like that. Life is a spectrum, and any place we draw the line is arbitrary -- not natural. Nature has its own laws, which are not the laws of men.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The solution is to genetically test several different spots on their body to make sure it isn't a case of them being a male/female chimera, that is, having both cells that are XX and cells that are XY. Being a chimera would give them an advantage, though, not as much of an advantage as them being male.
This opens up a whole new can of worms, in terms of sporting events and genetic disorders. Do you let the kid with that genetic disorder that makes him super muscular compete in weightlifting competitions, knowing that he has an unfair genetic advantage to begin with? Would you let a person born with a mermaid tail instead of legs compete in swimming?
It'll be interesting to see how this plays out, as it could shape the future of competition in sporting events. Personally, I'd like to keep things fair. It's not fair to the other racers if she's female but has a genetic disorder that makes her much more male than the other racers. She's built like a man, looks like a man, runs like a man, and probably has the urge to urinate while standing up like a man. How is this fair in a competition built around females, knowing that males would have an unfair advantage against them?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
cut her in half and count the rings
women do have one more set of rib bones than men do
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
just ask "asl?"
To prove someone is female, you have to define what "female" means first. Is a female human one with breasts and/or a vagina? Two X chromosomes? A certain balance of hormones in the blood? One whose birth certificate reads "GENDER: FEMALE?"
An athlete may have an "advantage" over other athletes by virtue of an innate genetic difference, whether that difference improves circulation, O2 sats, lactic acid removal, or whatever. You can't call it "unfair" unless the advantage was conferred deliberately in an attempt to boost performance. No one disagrees that A-Rod, Manny, and Ortiz all got an unfair advantage in baseball because they were taking steroids to boost muscle mass. But would you call Jeter or Ellsbury's agility "unfair?" They got it in the same genetic lottery in which we all participate at birth.
Most people have an okay time with "male" and "female" as unproblematic concepts, because for the majority of people all the things that might go into the concepts correlate at least reasonably well. Most females are genetically XX, and have both primary and secondary sexual characteristics typical of females. Most males are XY, and have primary/secondary characteristics typical of males.
If those things aren't all correlated nicely, though, it makes clear that there isn't really a solid definition that covers all aspects of what we mean. A genetic test for XX vs. XY? (And then what do you do about XXY?) Just an issue of primary sexual traits? (Do secondary sexual traits matter?) A combination of all the above? (And then what do you do if they don't all match up?)
At some point the distinctions become somewhat arbitrary, and to me at least not all that interesting: there isn't actually any magical "right" answer to the question. Perhaps to get an answer that makes sense in this context we might first answer: what is the purpose of having separate male/female sporting competitions, and which definition of sex or gender would contribute towards that purpose best?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
>'she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage
Have began
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Question:
Have you gained weight?
Answers:
Yeah, I should hit the gym. - Male
Whaaa... you don't love me anymore! - Female
in a secrete government facility some testing are being done on something that surely must be an alien with shape shifting abilities or a liquid metal robot from the future. It was found looking like a blonde, young and attractive female solving math problems.
Stop it! You're asking for goatse, you know.
Table-ized A.I.
Easy.
Step 1: Pull Pants down.
Step 2: Look.
AnimePapers.org: Anime Wallpapers Handled With Care
Driving test.
Considering that there are plenty of creatures which can be hermaphrodites, and that there are rare genetic variations (YXYY, for example) where one is born with e.g. male characteristics while the sexual organs may be female, this is a difficult point. Where do you draw the line? I know of a few lesbians who, except for the chest, could easily pass for male: large arms and hands, low voice, etc.
The sexual differences are fairly pronounced for "normal" men and women, but there are plenty of in-betweens. Methinks the only thing they can do is make an extensive study of all the differences between men and women, and say that if more than an x number of variables lean towards the one or the other, the person in question must be considered as being of the opposite sex. Either that, or you have to create the Hermaphrodite Olympics. They'll probably still have to investigate each case separately either way.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
I think this is a reasonable starting point:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/athlete-to-be-checked-for-balls-200908201997/
C-x C-s C-x k
What's she competing in? Well, she's competing in the "female division". What does "female" mean? Turns out they never bothered defining that.
Is it fair that she be allowed to compete?
Who the hell knows? They've already tossed in an "unfairness" by removing half of humanity. Is it a justified unfairness? Probably. But there's no objective answer to where they should draw the line - they could restrict it by weight class, by height, by age, by whatever the hell they wanted to.
Even assuming we discover there's something wacky about her genetics, the problem isn't her genetics - the problem is that nobody sat down and scientifically described what "female" meant, and now they're going to end up in the middle of a shitstorm because everyone defines it slightly differently without realizing it.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Totally agree with you. Science has shown us that there is no easy answer to this question.
wot no sig
Any biologist will tell you what a karyotype is.
If it's XX, it's female. If it's XY, it's male. Pediatricians do this all the time in cases of genital ambiguity.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Proof of female: Give birth
Proof of male: You are reading this
Place subject in bedroom and tell subject you are leaving for an 'evening out' in 10 mins.
If subject does not emerge from bedroom, ready within the next 20 mins, subject is female.
AT&ROFLMAO
Chimeras (people composed of cells with two distinct sets of genes).
People that have an XY chromosome but are 'immune' to testerone, so they are physically female.
People with XXY, XYY, and even XXX genes.
People with that are XX but genetically sensitive to testerone so they are physically male
People that are hermaphrodites (non working)
People that are hermaphrodites (working - very rare)
People that looked 'unusual' so doctors 'altered' them when they were a child, surgically and/or pharmaceutically
People that choose to alter themselves surgically and/or pharmaceutically
The law needs to recognize that male and female are not the only choices.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Just let everybody race everybody else. No more worrying whether people truly class as male, female, able-bodied or whatever.
Look, "a rare medical condition" wouldn't change anything. Would she then compete with males? No, she couldn't, could she, because she has a cunt and tits? So they're trying to disqualify her from competing at all. This is total bullshit; why can't they just let her have her 15 minutes in the spotlight?
Genetic tests and genital examination.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, the sport in question needs to decide one of either of these simple diagnostic criteria in segregating their sport:
Either you go by genetic screening, in which case "Y makes the guy". They could have an extra chromosome or two, or even be missing one, but so long as they do not have a "y", they are female.
"or"
Its done by respective genitalia, having been born that way, or surgically altered. Basically where do you want transvestites to compete? It's almost purely a PC issue, but the lack of testies is a bit of a handicap in some cases. Though then what about testicular cancer survivors? Brings up a slew of arguments. Maybe the creation of a third catagory is needed in some cases. Though then would it have the player density to be interesting to watch, and would it bring a stigma to those in that catagory? Heck, I know of some female golfers that t off with the men at their t, play with normal clubs, and use pink ladies... (as are the men... Though this reference is a bit dated...) and if they were pro, would preffer to compete in the mens leugue, as they feel it would be more challenging and bring more respect.
Two options, one with a third ammendment that could be chosen as well. Personally? I would go with genetics. I think it's more fair. And only for sex chromosomes. I could care less about any other genetic condition that could give them an edge. If athletes that lack the ability to feel lactic acid, or have a slew of other enhancements, then cool. It might kill the sport for those without those genes, but then more and more will have these genes in competition. Or not. Who knows what the future holds? Though if you start screening on genes asside from sex, then you drive out these "super athletes". The you get a question for if "they" should have their own league? And if others without these enhancements bred onto them can compete for greater glory? And soon all these complications add together to really make ones head hurt, and detract from the sports in question.
Then again, I only watch curling, play a little golf, and generally ignore the rest.... So I might not be the best opinion on the matter...
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Remember where you are.
Sig this!
Each persons genetics should be profiled... and all genetic advantages should be handicapped against. This will make it fair to those whose will and determination in training are trumped by their less optimum genetics.
By any measure the man is a physiological freak. Come on! anyone who is at the peak of their sport is a freak compared to mere mortals like 99.9999% of us. Leave her alone and let us enjoy her performances.
Considering that there are plenty of creatures which can be hermaphrodites
We aren't talking about clown fish here. That would be a red herring. (Sorry couldn't resist the pun.)
there are rare genetic variations ... this is a difficult point. Where do you draw the line?
An interesting question, but probably not relevant to this particular case. We know we want to draw the line between XX and XY. Test her. If she is XX, then female. If XY, then male. It only needs to be an issue if she turns up as XXY or XYY something else.
I watched the women's 1500m race today and saw not one woman who wasn't flat chested or nearly so.
I believe (from Mary Decker Slayne) that this is typical of women who train hard and as this young lass is just now 18 it would make sense that her hormonal changes were or are going to happen latter.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I really hate this idea that people with any kind of advantage aren't allowed to participate in athletic competitions. What's the point, then? How far should we take it? Next thing you know, people will be rejected for the "unfair advantage" of simply having spent their life training for the event. (This actually already happens in the olympics to some extent with their ban on "professional" athletes in events like basketball).
Our "world records" are quite meaningless when the individuals with the greatest chance of actually setting one aren't allowed on the field. I also think it's inappropriate to ban athletes that have subjected themselves to chemical augmentation. I would suggest keeping separate "augmented" and "non-augmented" records, but ultimately it's impossible to determine where to draw the line between augmentation and things like tailored dietary supplements. But our records are a joke. We have no idea who the fastest human runner on the planet is, because he's not allowed to officially compete.
Cases like this also illustrate the ridiculousness of gender segregation in athletics. Does anyone with a basic science education actually still believe that there are only two genders? Should we have yet another segregated league for XXY athletes like M. Semenya? If we are going to acknowledge the tendencies for different genders to have different athletic abilities, why not acknowledge the tendencies among different races, age groups, cultures, shoe sizes, etc? I know, let's just put every individual in their own little athletic division and they can set records against themselves all day long. Imagine the profits for Guinness!
Knowledge != Intelligence
For a totally hypothetical example, given their population genetic disposition to dimunitive size, should pygmies be granted their own event categories (i.e. pygmy and non-pygmy events)? Should sexual distinctions be eliminated, so that events are unisex, and we simply see asymmetric distributions of performance along gender lines by the type of event? (i.e. females generally under-performing males in strength-burst events, more parity in endurance events, and possibly more over-performance in events entailing a high degree of coordination? Of course transies kick everyone's asses at everything? ;)
I write as a jock and as a transsexual, so the questions are personal for me (although I tend towards non-spectator and less competitive jockosity).
If you haven't looked in to the -how- of a sex change, you probably should. It's fascinating.
Turns out its almost all about the action of estrogen and testosterone on the body. Here's how it works:
Before birth: genetics (not the action of testosterone or estrogen) drive the construction of male or female genitalia along with testicles, prostate, uterus and ovaries. The bodies otherwise develop pretty much exactly the same.
Before puberty: still nothing. Get a boy and a girl both five years old, cut their hair the same and dress them in the same clothes. You won't be able to tell which is which. Except for the genitalia, their bodies are virtually identical.
Puberty: Boys and girls begin producing significant quantities of testosterone or estrogen. Under the action of testosterone, boys gain an extra several inches of height.
Any time: under the action of testosterone, the voice deepens, facial hair appears, body hair becomes coarse and soft tissues redistribute and redevelop towards the abdomen in particular and towards what's considered to be the male figure in general. Under the action of estrogen, the mammaries develop, body hair becomes soft and soft tissue redistributes towards the thighs and the so-called "hourglass figure." And of course if she actually has a uterus then she begins to menstruate.
Note that if you artificially introduce testosterone and estrogen before puberty, the changes start early, typically to the detriment of the girl or boy whose body isn't yet ready.
The appearance of facial hair, the voice drop and the development of the mammaries are permanent features. Skeletal height is also permanent after puberty; you won't add inches by introducing testosterone in your 30s. Once developed these characteristics can only be surgically altered. The soft tissue distribution and body hair character alters under the effect of the two chemicals, so if you change the chemical balance those features will alter.
Post menopause/ed: in the absence of significant amounts of testosterone and estrogen, body hair and figure tend towards a neutral configuration. That's why grandma and grandpa start to look alike.
So, someone undergoing a sex change takes two daily pills: one to block the action of the undesired chemical (estrogen or testosterone) and one which provides the missing chemical. Do this for about a year and 90% of the change is accomplished... From a fully clothed perspective you generally can't tell the difference except that the woman is oddly tall or the man oddly short. In fact, given the expense and risk of the final SRS surgery (versus the sub-$50/month cost of the pills), more than a few trans simply stop there, satisfied with an outward appearance and lifestyle that matches their self-image.
Now apparently the sports officials suspect something more unusual than just tampering with body chemistry is going on here. There's a very rare birth defect in which an individual who is genetically male incorrectly grows female genitalia. They lack ovaries and a uterus. The testicles are still connected but they're up in the abdomen and mostly non-functional. Generally the first time anyone even suspects the individual isn't genetically female is when they reach puberty and the testicles start putting out testosterone. The girl adds 6 inches in a growth spurt, spouts fuzz on her face, loses an octave in her voice and pads her bra. Very embarrassing.
Although I can certainly understand the reason this happens, it seems rather difficult to have a public discussion about this sort of issue without anti-transgender trolling or pro-transgender activism. Indeed, this is Slashdot and there is -some- expectation of intelligence in the discussions here (no, I'm not new here; I'm just a silly idealist :-), so it's somewhat annoying to see so much subjective argument of this sort. It's understandable that silly, ignorant people can't talk about this without, one might say, politicizing the discussion. But to see it in here is just sad. Science makes no statement of social or moral agreeability; "scientific values" is a bit of an oxymoron, at least as used by the GP.
what if the genetic flaw was to have calf muscles that are 1/4 inch thicker, resulting in more leg power. Should they be disqualified?
*IF* they insist on dividing the competitions between males and females (and I admit that they usually have good reason for doing so), THEN they should strictly stick to their categories. XY for male, XX for female, with no significant genital "abnormalities" that may affect the outcome.
At the same time, however, maybe they should consider an "other" category. Just so the minority is not left out. The "really special" Olympics, shall we say.
If Caster stops and asks for directions to the track arena, Caster is a female. If Caster continues to drive around, crossing bridges, running into cul-de-sacs, on and off the freeway, then Caster is a male.
Keep Doing Good.
Reminds me of a futurama episode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bend_Her Bender a robot sex change is a complex and dangerous procedure. Replacing your testosteroil with Fembot lubricants can cause wild mood swings. And the effects may be irreversible. Well let's get started!
Sorry, but the parent post (probably satirically as well as unwittingly) has suggested the only real way to actually solve all such issues in the long-term. Real gender equality means you gotta compete directly with the men on equal footing, ladies. Sorry but no level of segregation can be entirely fair, ever.
What I've learned in school about proofs is that, if you cant prove something is true, try to prove that the opposite is true instead, and if it is, you know that the first can't be true too.
Can she/he drive a car?
yes -> sorry... not a woman.
From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema
"In 1950 Dillema was expelled for life by the Dutch National Athletics Federations. A gynaecologist concluded that Dillema was an intersex."
"In 2008, a controversial DNA-test on dead cells from her clothing found that she may have been a Genetic Mosaic, having both 46XX (female) and 46XY (male) chromosomes in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. "
If someone reads slashdot = male
Everyone else = female
What constitutes a flaw? Darwin teaches us that the species most responsive to change is most likely to survive. What if, for example, women are catching up with men in terms of muscle power and stamina?
Flaw insinuates positive and negative; a very human trait of cognition, and extremely subject to the zeitgeist of our time. Evolution doesn't work that way. $h!t happens, and sometimes it is either productive or at least non-detrimental; the latter will mean an extra notch under the belt when the inevitable change comes on. That is why rats, bats, birds and many other successful organisms have conquered the planet. They've got an edge.
This may just be the start of a new trend in humanity. It may be latent for a while, but if (extreme example) we get invaded by Martians tomorrow and survive to start an interstellar war, people like her may be of incalculable value. Consider, and consider carefully, the nature of your perception.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
This is pretty rediculous. This is what happens when silly people organize silly things, then orchestrate silly rules to keep the silly things from becoming too silly, then those silly rules forget the initial point.
The reason men and women don't compete together is because "there will be a disparity between men and women". So they have been seperated. Now someone's saying that this person isn't slow enough to fall into the women's category. Well good news, your whole "split them up by speed" still works.
There are many "marathons" these days. Just general fitness or charity "start here, move yourself across/around the city, end there". Often, you can walk, jog, or run. Obviously the ones walking don't beat the ones running. No one expects them to -- they are simply slower. But still all three "speeds" compete in the event.
What's even more rediculous is that the entire concept of the split is purely for the observer. The woman still scored a 6, and the man still scored a 5. It really doesn't matter how the other women and men scored. That women is better than that man. Why is this a problem.
Throw them all into the same pool. Let the faster ones finish first, and let the slower ones finish last. When all ten women are slower than all ten men, every observer watching from the stands or on TV will say that the best women came "first in her class" -- just like in auto-racing with multiple classes of cars. Hell, put stock cars, formula-1 cars, bicycles, men, women, teenagers, toddlers, infants, and embryos on the same track. I'll expect the formula-1 cars to be faster tha the embryos, it's ok, I can split them up into classes all on my own -- from the results.
It's like I always say to servers in a restaurant who ask my party if we want seperate bills: "thanks, but I can divide a $20 lunch all by myself".
So quit the grouping for no reason -- it's not like they're competing with each-other directly, it's only their scores that compete. When there's a large gap between number 6 and number 7 in the standings, I'll put my group seperation there. And when there isn't, I won't.
For fook sake...if someone is born with a vagina and they haven't taken drugs or gotten surgery to get there, they are a woman.
To try to weed someone out of the athletic process because God (or whatever you believe in) has given them "a little extra" is absurd.
Are we going to treat the Olympics like a dog show and start delving into genetics and "quality of their coat" and all the other BS nitpicks that people use to judge dogs in order to allow people to compete in sports? Absent an obvious attempt at cheating, I find this whole line of "testing" to be repulsive.
Male index fingers are shorter than their ring fingers, and females have the opposite. Sometimes they can get close, but that's one way you can distinguish someone's gender.
The division by gender in athletics is somewhat of an antiquity. I'm surprised more anti-sexists don't decry it. Find a new way to categorize athletic performance for fair contests than gender and this problem goes away.
I read the script, and I think it would help my character's motivation if he was on fire. -Bender
1) Ask them, are you a girl?
2) Have you always been a girl?
3) If not, can you keep a secret?
Works for me ;)
To prove someone is female, you have to define what "female" means first.
Not really. I can't exactly define "chair", but I know that this is a chair. In the same way, being uniformly XX or XY is a sufficient but not necessary condition for being proven female or proven male. That is to say "XX -> female" but not "XX
Only once she has been shown to not XX or XY, do things get fuzzy. Until that happens (and I've not seen any indication that it will), it would be inappropriate to use this woman's situation as a soap box for pushing political agendas.
I suspect there will be a bunch of posts suggesting a simple genetic test will determine somebody's gender, but these tests were abandoned precisely because there are numerous cases where they fail. To mention a few examples:
Complete Androgen Insensitivity:
There's a number of people with XY chromosome genotype for which teh cells don't respond to testosterone. These individuals develop as women, and because they don't even respond to the very slight amount of testosterone women have they can actually be more feminine in physical terms than XX women. Many don't even know about their condition especially sicne the sign that usually reveals it ( lack of menstruation ) is easily mistaken as being caused by the exercise many athletes undergo.
Chromosome variations:
Not all peopel are XY or XX in chromosomes. There's Klinefelter ( XXY ) , Mosaics ( where some cells have one chromosome setup and some another ), and chimeras ( where different cells not only had different chromosome setups but the entire genotype can vary from cell to cell ).
Hormonal Variation:
Genetics is only part of what determines your sex. Even if you have XY chromosomes that only really affects the pre-puberty development of your genitals. The other sex differences ( secondary sex characteristics ) are down to hormonal influences. This is why transsexuals that go on hormone replacement therapy and have their gonads removed through sex reassignment surgery develop characteristics similar to tehri desired sex ( breast development in Male-to-female transsexuals, facial hair and muscle growth in Female-to-male transsexuals etc... ). This of course brings me to the next point...
Transsexualism:
Just like people can develop ambiguous genitals or chromosomes, some people develop a psychological gender similar to the opposite biological sex. It's not known exactly why this occurs, but it is currently believed to be neurological in origin ( i.e you could have people with a male brain in a female body or the other way around ). Often these individuals will undergo hormone replacement therapy in order to make their bodies more congruent with their psychological gender ( the only known effective treatment, attempting to resolve the situation with psychotherapy typically fails and has frequently resulted in suicides ). Male to female transsexuals tend to lose upper body strength while on hormones, female to male ones gain it. Thus classifying these individuals on the basis of genetics rather than their hormonal status would stick people with male muscle development among female competitors and vice versa.
Essentially your performance in sports is more closely linked to hormonal factors ( and how your body respond to them ) than genetics, and thus a karyotype test is a rally poor way to classify competitors. Believe it or not but you get people with XX chromosomes that have more testosterone than the average man, and conversely XY individuals with female Oestrogen and progesterone levels. What is more is that in some cases the individual in question is not even aware of their genotype and it has happened before that female athletes have been shocked to find out they have Y chromosomes.
Male and female sexes are a strategy evolved for reproduction. Therefore my definition would be: Is the person capable of bearing children? Do they have the right chromosomes (xx) and organs, IE. ovaries, uterus etc.
Men cannot bear children. Women can. End of story.
Liberty.
slashdot seems the perfect place to ask this question, I'd a like a solution requiring the use of measuring tapes, callipers, several badgers and a laser interferometer
prepare the survey weasels.
Oh dear. A woman has done some work and is now noticeably better than other women.
Frankly, the whole idea of segregating sports based on sex is, well, sexist and therefore is contradictory to human rights.
Female athletes should quit being so bitchy about other women and just get on with enjoying their sports otherwise we might just bite the bullet and unify the currently sex-segregated teams.
The whole concept of what is female and what is male is a difficult issue especially when you get down to the fact that some persons are chimeras (constituted of parts with different genetic makeup)
Best just to keep to inspecting genitals to see if "she" lacks a penis and balls, and/or checking to see if "she" has a prostate gland.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok I don't think anyone has said this yet which is weird but also expected considering this is slashdot.
But One: This, while perhaps necessary, is actually a really stupid move, PR wise. I mean on what planet did they think this would not be controversial, and reflect badly on them. Any good PR person would hv said this was the single worst move they could make.
And two: this is, or at the very least will be percieved to be, very sexist and racist. People will say it is because she is South African and doesn't look like a woman and that they are being racist.
It is therefore a very stupid move. Don't think anyone's said that so thought I would just post this long random speculation.
Little clues like testosteroil and the presence of an item should be sure signs of maleness.
A slightly different topic from "gender determination" would be "normalizing characteristics". Since each person has a different but similar physiology, maybe we should test for things like normal hinge points (tendon attachments) and chromosome/hormone levels and then determine the probable advantage/disadvantage for each sport adjusted from the median. We could then create a handicap rating so that the only important variables are training and motivation. Everyone starts out even.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
.. unless you've got multiple X-Chromosomes instead of just one.
Seriously. A simple DNA test will very likely answer the question pretty easily.
Genetic testing. If Y is found, then male. If hermaphrodism is diagnosed, do a random sample from various parts of the body. If more than 50% return as male, the subject is male. Otherwise, the subject is female. If exactly 50% or within margin of error return male, subject is allowed to declare their own legal sex. These outliers are too rare to disrupt the system and start claiming more than 2 sexes.
?
so that I don't get blocked by " Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Shouldn't these track and field events be a place where we humans can come together and show how far we're able to push our natural limitations without body modification?
Without body modification, I mean without introducing drugs or mechanical advantages into our bodies. To show how far we can go "naturally".
Rules are rules, and the sport has their own governing authority deciding what is and isn't okay.
1. Logically, if she had a sex change, this would be a modification to her body. How is this any different from doping?
2. Logically, if she was born that way, without any drug inducements, the question is, is she considered male or female?
As someone pointed out, males tend to be thought of producing sperm, and females producing ova. But, where does that leave those who don't fit that definition?
Look at one's chromosomes, and whether one's body is producing the hormones that tend to make one male or female. Is she an underdeveloped male, or is she an underveloped female? This may be an oversimplification, but don't males have more testosterone that estrogen, and females more estrogen than testosterone?
All in all, it comes down to how the governing authority of the sport defines it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-runner-side21-2009aug21,0,3926576.story
Lots of suggestions above.
Or you could quit considering gender, which is a crutch anyway for the weaker members of the race, and just say that the fastest or strongest human wins regardless of apparent gender. "Men" would win some events easily, while "Women" would likely do well on other events.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
In that certain area.
Because otherwise, no woman would _ever_ have won an olympic medal in any track and field competition...
(dont nail me on it, some disciplines are close, where the woman gold metal winner might have made the podium in the male competition, but just take a look at the results this time around...)
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Does she go to the bathroom alone or with two friends?
How much time does she spend in the shoe store?
Does the battery of her mobile phone last more than a day?
Ok for crying out loud...
why do we still have rules that tell sports teams that they have to be all male or all female?
I mean, for some sports I can understand that the team might want all male, rugby or gridiron come to mind.
But cricket? Baseball? pffft.
It should be up to the coach who they field, man woman or whatever. At the end of the day it should be their call and on their heads does it fall if the team loses because of it.
Its as bad as paying a woman less than a man for doing the same job.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I'm curious what the Slashdot community thinks: what can be considered proof of someone being male or female?
I trust I am speaking for the whole /. community. How should we know? Is there life outside Mother's basement?
And, oh yes, what's a female?
We probably need to change the Men's divisions to Open or Unrestricted divisions. These divisions are open to anyone regardless of gender but in reality will be almost entirely standard definition men with the occasional high-testosterone non-male. The Women's divisions will only be for those with the standard XX genetic configuration.
... is the structure of my chromosomes.
Gender is largely determined by our genes. But there are a number of articles on the web which demonstrate that hormones present in the womb can alter the initial determination of gender. Short of outright hermaphroditism, a female may have a lot of masculine characteristics, and a male can have a lot of feminine characteristics. Actually, it didn't require a lot of research to figure this out - people everywhere exhibit varying degrees of both masculine and feminine characteristics.
"Prove you're a girl"??? WTF??? PROVE IT??? Give us all a break. Are we going to start demanding DNA and ultrasound analysis of every little leaguer? The kid either grows up thinking that he's a he, or that she's a she. That's good enough for almost anything. And, it should be good enough for the olympics. One shouldn't have to submit to what amounts to sexual molestation. Maybe a blood test. But, the blood test will be little more conclusive than looking at a person. He/she has hormone levels that are outside the norm? Big fucking deal.
This world is getting to damned demanding. No one has a right to demand that I prove my sexuality - NO ONE. Not even if I'm competing on the world stage. This young lady has been researched to death. Her Mama and her Daddy vouch for her, and her birth certificate says "Female".
Drop it, everyone.
The only people who will ever have a legitimate interest in her genitalia are those who find her attractive enough to want to share her bed. And, those people will keep those details private unless they are total jerks.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I agree with you. The long-term solution is to grade everyone on a level playing field. As a society we are a long way from this but I feel that we also are actively inhibiting fair competition between genders simply because of historical stereotypes based on genetic profiling that was never expected to change but is now obviously changing rapidly.
Isn't an XY test pretty easy?
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
If it has ovaries, fallopian tubes, etc and the rest of the hardware needed to birth a child then it is considered female. If said person contains both sets of parts normally found in the respective sexes, then said person should be considered neither sex by whatever committee is deciding eligibility based on certain advantages to be had over either sex by the other. In this instance, this would only be fair to the other athletes. Fairness in this case is determined not by the exception, but the norm. Like mother nature, sometimes life's a bitch.
Shit, every elite athelete has a "rare medical or genetic advantage". Are we going to start disqualifying people because they are unusually talented? That'll sure make sports fun.
In case people hadn't noticed, this thread is full of gossip about a very personal, very intimate part of a person's life. A real, living, breathing person.
This woman has had her entire life, her entire identity turned in to an international freak show. How would you feel if this was you? Your Mom? Your sister?
- somebody who has been there
you can try muddy the waters all you want, but if you've got a pair of nuts, your not female.
Eh? I don't think you read my post.
Running shorts don't hide much, and I don't see any "nuts". Urine tests are given under supervision and without shorts, and still nobody saw any "nuts". If the authorities still have any doubt, they should be doing their tests before talking to the press. Whatever the outcome, the current fiasco is likely doing real harm to Semenya, and does nothing for the credibility of the sport. That's nuts.
The thing is that there isn't a clear line between female and male. Being Female or male isn't an absolute thing, it's extreme opposite ends of human sexuality with subtle variations in between. Many people don't realize but there are many people that are in between but it's generally hushed up by the doctors, their family and society in general. Not only are there physical ambiguities of the genitalia and body but also various hormone and neurological variations, all caused by chromosomal, genetic and developmental conditions that would put someone in between the gender extremes. Being physically intersexed, transsexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, dynamically gendered (changing gender expression with moods), transgendered, a butch straight woman, a feminine straight man, etc are really just part of being in between the gender extremes.
Just like boxing weight divisions break up by weight, I think a better choice is to break up the people based on size, performance and endurance tests. Have high performers compete in one category, mid-range and low range in others. I've seen women that could beat most men in a physical competition, men that wouldn't have a chance when physically competing with other men and many women. If you say one person had a genetic advantage over others why not have them compete with people at their same level of performance. Hell, why not take it a step farther. If people want to use safe forms of performance enhancing drugs, let them as long as they do it against people with their same level of performance. The drug companies could sponsor them.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
I detect a thread of racist jealousy here .... obviously she can't be that good AND be female. Get over it, she's just a better athlete than you.
She didn't die of steroid abuse. People blame steroids for all kinds of shit. Lyle Alzado died of a fucking brain tumor and he blamed steroids.
Show her a Three Stooges DVD. If she shakes her head and tsk-tsks through the whole thing, she's fine. If she laughs uproariously--at any point--stop play and say "you, sir, are running with the fellas."
Want to improve your life? This guy will show you how!
The only reason this is an issue right now--regardless of the jump in performance--is that her looks appear predominately male to the average observer. It goes far beyond just being muscular, trim, and having an athletic female bosom. The set of her shoulders and her facial characteristics would likely cause a casual observer to assume she was male. I thought my wife was reading about a male runner when I first saw her picture, before I knew about the controversy.
I know that there are many of each gender whose characteristics might cause them to be misidentified at first. Take this initial misidentification in conjunction with the recent exceptional results, and it is easy to see why some might wonder. I don't know that calling for such testing is necessary. I assume she already has a physician or trainer who can make an attestation.
If it does come down to a genetic test, then it should be strictly XY vs. XX and it should be a standard test for all competitors. Otherwise, they'll only be testing those whose physical traits suggest they might be different gendered. Those whose physical traits already closer match the other gender would go without suspicion.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
If I believe I am a turtle, does that make me a turtle?
I mean, you don't really expect us to have any real experience with that, right?
Catalin Braescu
Ofaly.com
If you have ever taking an forensic (or biological) anthropology course you find that there are some physical charecteristics, beyond sexual organs, which help to determine the gender of a set of bones. This is known as sexual dimorphism (the systematic difference in form between individuals of different sex in the same species). There are 3 easy ways to identify (though, genetic mutations can fool this- althrough RARE for all three).
1: On the back of the skull down towards the spine, there is a protuberance called the External Occipital Protuberance- This exists on the back of a male skull though is none (or very small) existant in women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_occipital_protuberance- it is a small outgrowth of the back of the skull (if you are a male feel for it- if there is a female that will let you touch them, you will notice they are missing this protuberance).
2:The angle of the jaw in males is approximately 90 Degrees, the angle of the jaw in women is typically over 125 degrees.
3 (this would require x-rays):The Sciatic notch (part of the pelvis) is much larger in women- notably for child burth- also (extra point)the Subpubic angle is significantly larger in women than in menLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpubic_angle This angle would explain why those with a trained eye for runners whould see 'her' run in more of a masculine fashion.
. Yes there are cases of Genetic mutations that cause for criss crosses of sexual organs (holding on the Michael Jackson joke here). Many times, however, the doctor solves that problem at birth (nip, or tuck).
As for a view of this in the sports world (I really could care less here, but I think it is an interesting subject), running is broken into main classes, male and female. If you have traits of both, this would disqualify you as you do not adequately meet only one criteria, without meeting all the other criteria. As an example: a transgender male would not be allowed to run in a womens division, no matter how much estrogen, or how many operations they had.
I lost all interest in "world class" athletes when FloJo died of a heart attack due to steroid abuse at a young age.
Are you sure it was a heart attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Griffith-Joyner#Death
I see people suggest we should introduce some kind of "miscellanous" category alongside male/female. I would instead ask: how long until we have to make away with male/female categories alltogether?
Give her an Ikea desk in box, if she reads the instructions she is a woman, if not he is a man.
By looking under her skirt..
If you look at it closely, I will bet that all top level athletes have a genetic advantage. I am not saying a genetic deficiency, but a genetic makeup that makes them perform at a higher level than other people. If we start screening athletes based on genetic makeup, we will never stop until only the most average people are allowed to compete. I would like to be a top level athlete too, and if we can find a way to disqualify all the guys who run faster than me, I might make it. Is that what we want? The alternative, which allows most everyone to compete in one of two categories, is the current system: genital configuration, assuming it was not obtained via surgery.
He "died of a...brain tumor" and then "blamed steroids."
I think he/shes are the least of our worries.
If it weren't for genetic discrimination, there would be very few women with NCAA athletic scholarships, as they would be forced to compete for slots on nominally mixed-gender teams based purely on ability. In sports like basketball, baseball, golf, and other high-strength or high-endurance sports, most women wouldn't make the cut. In the pros it would be almost a lost cause, with only the rarest exceptions.
There are other cases where genetic discrimination, or rather, genetic segregation, keeps people at ease due to cultural issues. This is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong, although it can have negative side-effects. Separate "women only" train cars and buses are the norm in some cultures, and separate men's and women's restrooms are the norm in the United States. This is all fine until you lose out on a promotion because your opposite-sex peer had an important impromptu discussion with your boss in the restroom, an opportunity you were denied because of gender segregation.
For individual sports like racing, I would like to see men and women race against each other or simply against the clock, but in sports where gender makes a profound difference, rank people by gender like they do today so women have a chance. In games like golf, eliminate the "women's tee" and have men and women play the same course on the same weekends, maybe even in the same foursomes. So what if the women gain 10 or 20 strokes? The best women will still be the best women, and we'll know just how much or how little a difference gender really makes on a given golf course.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I mean, even if she does have a rare disorder that gives her an advantage in female competition, she's still at a disadvantage in "everyone" i.e. male competition. So where should she compete? Why do we have to make this so complicated?
What's the point of "women's leagues" anyway, if not to give non-men a chance in athletic competitions?
Or have we decided that what we really want are the "everybody" league, where athletic excellence is all that matters and a "porny" league, where everyone has to have a score of 8.5 or better on hotornot
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
for ( i=0, chromosome23.length() >i, i++)
if ( chromosome23[i]=='x')
numX++;
if ( numX>1)
division=female;
else
division=male;
Navigation test. If you pass, even^H^H^H^Hespecially if you actually stop and ask for directions, you are a woman.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I say differentiate by external sex organs, let them dope, wear the crazy new swimsuits, let them do whatever they want. Get some really ridiculous records set, and start taking the emphasis off the time and start putting it back on the sport- having fun, maybe winning the race, but trying your best.
Maybe that's nuts as you may not ever win against the dopers, but by god at least all this scam and stress (lance armstrong?) can go away and people can truly enjoy what they do. At the end of the day, records are what the human body is capable of- naturally or otherwise, and the sport should be about trying your best. Are you after records and your name in a book, or are you after being known as the best in your time, or are you just after the thrill of the sport?
Before we get into proving how someone is female, can we first all agree on what female means? Even with a Y chromosome, I seem to recall that nonfunctional hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase can result in a fully reproductively capable female who looks the part. What sort of female do you need to be to qualify for women's athletics? XX? Functioning ovaries? Sure, we can probably come to a consensus over a test with some deliberation. But what exactly should the criteria be?
Take your hand and feel it up to see if its a Sheila
Since it is well established that 'Womens' events are specifically there because they are expected to be 'inferior' to the athletes in the 'Mens" events and thus cannot compete directly, the answer is simple. Just call one the 'inferior' event and one the superior event, and let anybody play in any event they want. If this athlete is actually a man, but in is running in the 'Womens' event because he wants to compete against 'inferior' athletes because he cannot compete against the 'superior' athletes', then big deal. Just note what his is doing.
On the other hand, if this athlete is a woman, and is only winning races because she is running against an 'inferior' set of athletes, she should step up and compete against the 'superior' set of athletes. I know I would rather be 2nd best (or even 300th best) at something than be #1 of the group that has no chance of competing against the best.
People are born with ambiguous genitals quite often. People can have a complete mismatch between their apparent gender and their chromosomal gender. Even if those match, there can be gender identity conflict with appearance, chromosomes, or both. Heck, some people even get romantically and sexually attracted to their own sex. Oh the humanity.
Though it is true that the vast majority of people fall very close to the ends of the gender spectrum, the fact is, that gender is not strictly binary. We've built a world that revolves largely around this notion, but we're seeing more and more signs of ambiguity as we become a more open society.
Personally I don't find it scary at all. No more so than when I learned a person doesn't have to be black or white, but can in fact be a mix of both. People like to be able to make distinct categories. Gray areas bother most folks, but they exist and you eventually have to get used to them or spend your life being very frustrated. Gender ambiguity seems to be the one that bothers people the most on a visceral level, though. It'll be a while before we start dealing with it in a healthy way as a society.
As to this runner -- I don't know if she's male or female or something in between. But whatever the case, they're a damn good runner.
Cheers.
he/she didn't just blow up the fastest woman's time in two events, she redefined 'fast.'
The continuity and in some respects the legitimacy of all previous records are now null-and-void.
It is impossible to describe how gifted these people are, even without the drugs.(Marion Jones was doping since she was a teenager and never got caught.) Unfortunately, people just don't get the opportunity to be right on the track to get a sense of the speed.
I know it doesn't matter to you, but for many it is very important.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Even better - if you take away all the corporate sponsorship and money floating around athletics not only will the drug/hormone/... problems go away, or at least be reduced, but so will all the silliness about high tech swimsuits, hinged skates, running shoes etc.
If we are going to let the money stay then at least remove all the doping rules and lets see how fast a drugged up human really can run before their heart explodes.
Is it will we're testing, or athletic performance, in an athletic competition? If it's simply pure will, then where is Olympic Used Car Negotiating, or National Championship "Sticking your arm in a bucket of ice water"? International Staring Contests?
If it's not simply will, then why are you looking for ways to mitigate the other factors?
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Just tell her the outfit makes her look fat. If she shrugs, dude. If she bites your head off she's a woman. You could also try blindfolding her and wave a credit card under her nose. You're risking a nasty bite or worse yet a maxed out credit card but it is a way to confirm gender.
That's what I was thinking, although the definition for "Woman" would probably need to be fairly sophisticated. E.g. a three year history of androgen levels + sensitivity below some threshold. Or have one unrestricted category, then various other categories that pit people with equal handicaps against each other (low androgen levels/female, don't have the bone structure of a fish, physical disabilities, hasn't spent their whole life training for the one event, etc.).
Dunno why, but that was banned some number a years ago.
They used to do it.
Started with some masculine looking women from old-USSR...
But somehow it was an invasion of privacy....
But genital viewing is not? *shrug*.
If she were excluded from the World Athletics Championship (and presumably the Olympic Games) on such grounds, would she thereby qualify for a place in the Special Olympics?
You know? We hear about "women can do anything men can do... and better" all day long but we know men are generally stronger and blah blah blah... I don't care. I'm sick of women being handicapped and compensated for at every turn. And when there is a woman that can actually compete against men, people have to question whether or not she is a she and attack her by using manipulative new "definitions" of what male and female are?
I only care about me doing the best I can. If someone else does better, good for them. If someone else doesn't, well, I'm sorry... keep trying or give up and find something else to do. Women want equality and if I were a woman, I would want equality too. But because I am a man, my sense of equality says "X == Y" and "Y == X". So if women are equal, then stop putting them in their own classifications. Because if separating the sexes in sports is okay, then shouldn't it also be okay to separate the sexes in the work place? And if it's okay to separate the sexes in sports, why not separate the ethnicities in sports too?
Try something more appropriate like Sports Illustrated (which is what I read). http://womenshistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ/Ya&sdn=womenshistory&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fsportsillustrated.cnn.com%2Folympics%2Ffeatures%2Fjoyner%2Fflojo_noden.html
FloJo was my hero!
Don't most athletes who are at the Olympic level have some sort of athletic advantage. Obviously it's about determination and perseverance in training but its also about have really good genes. An average joe/jane will never ever be able to go to the Olympics no matter how hard they train.
Simple really. Create a slashdot poll with the following tidbits/requirements. 1. TFA 2. Pics of breasteses What else do you need? All information will be examined thoroughly and responses will be made with the highest of standards
On average this is true that higher male or female hormone levels are correlated with differing finger lengths as you described. Ssomething like 75% of the time as I recall from the study which also happened to try to correlate it with intelligence (of course a sample size of 100 white people is hardly definitive). Of course, in general having a penis means you're male too, but if you've been paying attention you'll have noticed that isn't a 100% indicator either. In fact checking for sex organs is far more reliable than looking at the comparative length of someones fingers.
But the point of dividing people based on sex in sports is not for reproductive reasons, it's for physical ability reasons. Thus having a vagina is not relevant to physical ability (even though for most people, it is an accurate predictor of one's general physical performance range). Since sports are based on physical ability, the distinction would best be based on genes which control it and are usually correlated with sex. If the distinction seems somewhat absurd, that's probably because it is. The idea is to eliminate people who will very likely beat you every time, but not eliminate people who might not, even though in most cases it's due to the genes each of you were born with.
Human sexuality is bimodal, not absolute: most of us are quite obviously male or female but some of us aren't. There is no sharp dividing line in nature; anybody who wants a sharp line will have to invent one.
What about the REAL issue?
They should be testing Usain Bolt, cos we all know he is really a cheetah in a man suit.
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
It's a strange coincidence, but "Caster Semenya" is an anagram of "Yes, a secret man".
Did none of you watch Kindergarten Cop? Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.
It's not a tumor!
Every single of those "athlets" are there because of their genetic advantages or those of there pharmacists, usually both. A Joe/Joeline Average, no matter how hard he trains, will never stand the slightest chance in such a competition simple because he/she is lacking the little bit of extra juice that decides between being just sportive or being world class.
I stopped watching sports a couple of years ago because it's no fun anymore. I was more busy following who has been caught cheating in various ways than seeing real sports.
In the post-feminist revolution 2000s, we shouldn't care, and give females the equality they have been demanding. get rid of male/female events and the whole checking thing isn't a problem.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
That wont work because it would completely eliminate women from being competitive in a wide range of sports.
So what if it would?
Black people dominate several areas of sports. Should we have separate black and non-black events just so non-black people can be competitive in them? I'd say of course no, and my point is that this is exactly the same as having separate male and female events.
Is s/he good at math?
Oddly enough an athlete that failed a sex test some years ago later gave birth to children. In my opinion that mean the sex test was flawed and it was the pointless termination of an athletic career just because she had XXY chromosomes. I also agree that if you are born with the genetic ability to run like a gazelle on speed then that's just who you are and you should be allowed to compete within whatever division your genitals indicate.
Why do we have a "female" category in sports?
It is because about 50% of the population has a genetic advantage. So we have an "open" category, and a category for the 50% of the population that wants to compete among the others that don't posess this genetic advantage.
Now the question is: How do you prove you don't have this genetic advantage. Apparently there are some cases where you don't have the genetic advantage (commonly called "being male"), but still have some of the exterior symptoms of the genetic disadvantage.
This has happened before. ... in Dutch (better article)
Ewa Klobukowska
Foekje Dillema
Stella Walsh
So apparently in '67 they had the "Barr body" test to see if someone is female.
I find this whole matter and how it is dealt with by IAAF utterly discomforting. Apparently the issue isn't whether ms. Semenya is or isn't a woman but whether she's got unfair advantages. Resolving the gender question is easy and boils down to whether ms. Semenya ever has been a man or not. I take that's fairly easy to test.
But the unfair advantages isn't. What if ms. Semenya has a different hormone levels than found in most women? Would that make her an IAAF man? Or would she have to compete in the paralympics? And what about Usain Bolt? If you dig long enough you'll find that he has very clear advantages over other competitors. But marking these as unfair simply would simply be a step towards mediocrity, where the middle field is allowed to compete and the rest not.
Hell, if the medics would go about my body I'm sure they would find that I have unfair disadvantages and that therefor -inevitably- I'm a girl and should be allowed to compete against women. And loose nevertheless, but that's beside the point.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Human Pat = new Human(testicle,ovary); int mRank = Pat.jumpHurdles(men); int fRank = Pat.jumpHurdles(women); float rank = ((float)mRank + (float)fRank) /2 ;
We should eliminate Women's sports. Not try and carefully categorize every athlete and have massive debates when an athlete defies our categorization.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
She could be a hermaphrodite - both male *and* female. So, she would be a female in that case. To remove her wins because of that would be tantamount to a gross violation of human rights and discrimination to boot.
Dave
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
I have persistent thoughts of hoping I die because I feel very strongly that I need to be a woman. I shy away from mirrors in self-disgust. I have to avoid seeing women in general or I will start to get jealous of them. I hate my life.
Why would i choose this?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Caster Semenya was a female when she qualified to partake in the 2009 IAAF, she was a female in the first round qualifiers, a female in the quaterfinals, a female in the semis, a female at the start of the final and now that she obliterated the competition she is not female. Bunch of hypocrites. Winning in sports or in life is all about your genetic advantages. Einstein had a genetic advantage over his peers, Issac Netwon, Galileo, Socrates et. al. Proudly South African !
(S)he reminds me of Chech runner Jarmila Kratochvilova, whom I saw in the Helsinki championships 1983. (S)he won both 400m and 800m easily and now has the oldest world record, 800m from that year. The Finnish crowd used to chant "Jarmo-Jarmo-Jarmo", Jarmo being a Finnish boys' name. There wasn't much feminine about the hulk, and still isn't, according to a recent Finnish newspaper interview with her. But so what? Can't make these Kratochvilovas and Semenyas compete in the mens' events either.
To answer the question of whether or not she should be allowed to compete as a female if she is not 100% female, one must first consider the question of whether women should be competing in a separate class at all.
Let's avoid the underlying moral and philosophical issues and just stick with the practical reason for setting things up so women compete separately: approximately 50% of the population is female, so it is a political necessity. You can argue all sorts of other reasons, but when it really comes down to it, that is the crux of it.
And if you really think about it, we don't actually have women competing against women in one group and men competing against men in another group. What we REALLY have is women competing against women in one group, and EVERYONE ELSE competing in another group. Men are not set up as a protected class, it is only women who are set up as a protected class. If a sufficiently gifted female runner wanted to compete against men, I very much suspect that she'd be allowed to do so.
Once you realize the reality that female sports are basically a protected class based on a political reality, the answer to the other question becomes pretty simple: anyone who is not 100% female is not part of the "protected class" and should therefore compete in the "everyone else" category.
Is it fair? Maybe not. But how is having women compete separately "fair" in the first place? It is just for political expediency, and personally I don't see anything wrong with it if it keeps 50% of the population happier and more fulfilled than they otherwise would be without causing any undue hardship on a significant part of the population.
The problem is that if a sports regulatory organization is going to organize competitions by gender, then they should clearly define (a) what constitutes being male or female and (b) how a person is tested to see if they fit one one definition or the other. Everyone should then have to be tested. Some people won't be able to compete because they don't fit the definitions, but we are all "regulated out" of various opportunities for various reasons.
Every time I select text in TFA the Firefox Throbber spins. What is that page doing?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
The scientific solution would be to simply handicap all competitors who have an advantage. Bigger guys, genetically enhanced guys, doped guys would all wear a heavy shirt when they competed to even up the field. Guys could compete with girls in their 40 pound shirts or whatever.
As a number of folks here have already made it abundantly clear that sex is bugger-all hard to define. There's genetic sex (of which there are nearly a dozen), there's congenital development (we all start out female and then it's pretty much a crap shoot), there're even a fair number of folks without any secondary sexual characteristics at all.
Even if the young lady does or does not have perfectly normal genes, there are dozens of both natural and artificial processes that could give her an unfair advantage. The cost of eliminating all possible ways of cheating (including the unintentional cheating of atypical sexual development) would be prohibitive, and in of itself a form of unfair pandering to vested interests and religious bigots. If you think about it, the extraordinary athlete is often gifted with unusual physical traits (several of the best swimmers had unusual knee joints allowing them to hyper-extend at the knee and get a larger swing in their kicks, and a basketball player under 6 feet is for all intents unheard of.)
I would simply leave it at, if the person lives as their declared sex, functions socially as that sex, and isn't engaging in the illegal use of performance enhancing drugs... get over it.
If your brain has the size, shape and functions of a turtle, then I'd say yes, you're a turtle.
Can she be immediately classified as a male or female. No sense in making it more complicated than it needs to be until you get past that point.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
They already divided everyone up into two groups: Male and female. Because they decided that males do have an unfair advantage over females in sports and thus should not compete against each other. If someone is found to be male they are not banned, they are simply asked to compete against males.
I suppose the summary is a bit off. They don't really want to find out if she has an advantage, but rather if she still fully qualifies for having the distinct disadavantage of being genetically female.
What do you consider functional ? And how do you test that ? Do you need them to have kids ? Do you want them to have sex in a scan at the hospital to measure the pleasure center in their brain ? What would you consider functional ?
New things are always on the horizon
...previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing...
If my wife has pants, does that make her a man?
And furthermore, does that make me a homosexual?
If so, does it work the other way around as well?
Would a man dressed in womens' clothing qualify as a woman?
Would that in turn make gay couples were one part dress in womens' clothing heterosexual?
Sigh, if only Douglas Adams were still around to sort out the logic behind all this...
It's the way genders are tested at birth and we keep treating persons this way. To exclude her from any competition would create a really bad precedent. It's an easy test, and it's fair. Whatever other genetic or hormonal differences there are are given to her at birth. She probably did not have an easy life as she looked so much as a boy. Now she excels at something and only when she starts to compete at the highest level we are going to say, sorry, but your life as an athlete has ended, since you are not one of us?
Just take her physics into account when you remember the records. And stop taking those lists too seriously. Watch the races and enjoy.
I had a thought along similar lines the other day - no white man has ever run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. The 10 second barrier has been broken hundreds of times by black athletes. How come there is no call for racial segregation in the 100m? We already have sexual segregation. Why is one a good thing for society, and the other the complete opposite? If it can be shown that white men (or black men) are at a particular disadvantage in certain sports, would that mean segregated competition would be okay? Would it suddenly be a good thing, meaning that the "disadvantaged" athletes would have a league of their own to compete within?
This is a simple case of "Missing the Point". This occurrence is clearly an argument that we shouldn't have ANY sexism anywhere. period. If there were a law that said "No one can have abortions", instead of "No woman can have an abortion", then anyone who claims to be male who wants to have an abortion can't have one. Whereas, a law that specifies and discriminates against one gender or another cannot have this kind of power. Separating men and women on any empirical basis has almost no use whatsoever.
OTOH, the genitals as such have very little to do with athletic performance, whereas hormonal makeup has a lot to do with it. Sports aren't split into men's and women's events because they have different bits between their legs, it's because one gender, on average, has a large advantage over the other in athletic performance.
I'm sure transgender folks are happy for whatever public exposure this gives to the ambiguous nature of gender in some people. It's a complex and confusing issue, especially if you don't clearly define what you mean by gender and for what purposes that discrimination is made. I'm sure there will be no really satisfactory way to put these issues to rest in the sporting world, but perhaps these cases will do some good by providing a little insight into the complexities and varieties of human gender and sexuality.
I really don't think it's possible for anyone to be "a women" unless they have a rare genetic disorder that allows them to be several people at one time.
simple.
Who said it's the government?
Governments pitch in to fund venues for some leading athletic competitions. Governments enact and enforce "super-trademarks", which have a broader scope than ordinary trademarks, on names and symbols of some leading athletic competitions. For example, you can't use any mark remotely resembling "OLYMPIC" for your product in the United States, even if the product is completely unrelated to sports, unless the mark has been in continuous use since before 1950.
There's a difference between business and government, you freely associate with a business, you don't freely associate with a government.
If a business tries to enforce a copyright, patent, or trademark against me, I never "freely associate[d] with" it, especially if my alleged infringement was an accident. I am forced by the government to associate with it.
Plenty of tests are on a computer at one point or another, and many medical practices take steps to ensure private test results can never be traced back to the patient. HIV tests are a good example of this, though as a matter of public health those are reported to the government in some jurisdictions.
The protest appears to be against a perceived expansion of this alleged "matter of public health".
athletes aren't hired by the sport's governing body
Nor are doctors hired by the Food and Drug Administration or the American Medical Association. But athletes are hired by organizations accredited by the sport's governing body, and if the sport's governing body requires a test, it will decline to accredit any organization that does not likewise require it.
I just have one thing to add to this. If being genetically different/superior exempts you from competition, then should Michael Phelps be stripped of all his gold from the Olympics? I don't know how many of them were true but I remember hearing people saying he has slightly webbed fingers and toes, unusual shoulder joints which give him better strokes, his body is more aerodynamically shaped, etc... Would all those genetic advantages be a no no too?
This reminds me of the days when I used to play Counter Strike "OMG you must be cheating! No one can shoot like that!" and I wasn't even very good at it. I just happened to have quicker reflexes and 10 years more experience in mouse using than "the enemy", maybe even lower latency.
And who the heck cares? It's sports and everyone is using something! (My educated opinion of course)
You don't know what you don't know.
So, co-ed sports now?
Stop the brainwash
Check behind the ears.
I agree, and consider if it was the other way round: if a man didn't fit neatly into the stereotypical assumption of what men should be like, would they then be allowed to compete as a woman (and hence win more easily?) I doubt it!
On that note, I have to despair that TFS refers to "press reports" and links to the Daily Fail. For non-UK readers, this is a bigoted tabloid, that has a history of both xenophobia and transphobia. I mean for heaven's sake, has anyone actually read the article? Their answer to the question of one's sex is "Wouldn't wear dresses and sounds like a man on the phone". My god, according to them large numbers of women aren't actually women.
The irony is that if a man liked to wear dresses and therefore demanded he should compete as a woman, the Daily Mail would be first in line to criticise that decision too! (Even when it comes to transsexuals, they have ran stories criticising m2f transwomen).
Perhaps they don't choose their feelings, but surely surgery is a choice?
Oh, yes, hormone therapy, sex reassignment surgery, hair removal, voice exercises are all choices. But it's not like we have a relaxed attitude about it, like it's equivalent to a career choice or migrating or something like that. The transsexual suicide rate is apparently about 31%, which I believe is the highest amongst a minority group. (Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong here.) It's a serious medical condition.
Nope, but being a turtles often makes you believe you're a turtle.
According to the many press reports, she's believed to shave, is flat chested, has a very masculine physique, previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing ...
Its your sister!
Why stick up for big business?
In my experience, hormones have a lot more to do with athletics than do chromosomes.
I'm a transsexual woman who was born male (with XY chromosomes and all that usually entails). I competed in statewide Dance Dance Revolution tournaments and did well. Then, around age 24 when I started transitioning to female and taking estrogen and androgen blockers, my stamina decreased drastically, my muscle mass decreased and my body fat ratio increased. I was once able to play for 7.5 hours straight, and soon after transitioning I could only play for a couple of hours without getting exhausted. 10-footer songs that I used to be able to pass without much trouble, I couldn't make it all the way through anymore. I've been training to build up my stamina, and I'm getting stronger and more fit, but I'm still not at the level I was back when my hormonal balance was completely different.
It's not surprising that hormones are the most influential factor, because what are steroids, after all? Testosterone.
For idealists who want to change the world and are looking for a path with heart. http://connection-revolution.com
which is a form of SRY silencing. The gene is being expressed, but ignored due to an inability of the receptor to bind to the relevant gene products. Ultimately it comes down to the same thing. Insensitivity to testosterone is the functional equivalent of not being male.
If anything I would expect testosterone insensitivity to put her at a disadvantage because normal females do have testosterone and functional testosterone receptors. Testosterone is a anabolic steroid in both sexes. Fetal development and level of testosterone production differ between the sexes but an insensitivity to an anabolic steroid would make her less competitive in physical activities.
Phenotype is what matters here ultimately. If this woman is genetically male, but some how the machinery involved in developing the male phenotype is not functioning properly, then she will have no competitive advantage over the other contestants based on her "maleness".
My main point is that the genetics are irrelevant, unless she's undergone sex reassignment surgery in which case she was at one point phenotypically male and simply chopped it off to compete with the girls.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
This is ridiculous. This is the same thing as a story i once heard. If someone can tell me where it came from I would appreciate it. Anyway, there was a lawsuit in the future about a person who wanted to play baseball. The only problem was that he had ocular implants that gave him incredible vision (think Jordi LeForge). MLB was trying to say that he couldn't play because he had an unfair advantage. The catch was however that without the implants he was almost blind. This is of course an extreme case and is more superficial than Caster Semenya's but the concept is the same. Should we ban everyone from playing a sport on medical conditions. "Oh, I'm sorry you had the cold once so you can't ski." Just because this woman may have a medical condition that gives her improved athleticism doesn't mean she should compete. Take any major sports star that hasn't admitted to using steroids and see if any of them were tested for being abnormal. Nope. I think we look too much at making the games fair that we forget that they are supposed to be fun as well. As for determination of whether she is or is not a female, I think it is pretty much linked to the genitalia. Chromosomes only tell you so much.
DNA is not the sole determinant in someone's Gender. The issues are rather more complex than that.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
That isn't even slightly true. People's ring and their index fingers are generally the same length, and any variation has nothing to do with gender.
Hell, even if it did, it would just be due to hormones, and if you want to know what hormones were flowing around a person's body during their development, an easier method is to pull their pants down.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is the most sure-fire technique
I just went through the majority of responses to this post. As a trans woman I make no claim that I am a 'man' or 'woman' by the classical definitions. I am 'me' just like everyone else. The neurotic clinging to a clarity of the definition to which is which only shows the struggle I am forced to deal with living life within a world that thinks it's all black and white.
It's not. Accept it. Deal with it. Realize there is life outside the binary and celebrate humanity in all its forms.
Intersex applies to 50-some conditions where genetics disagrees with biology or the biology itself is ambiguious. Primate males start with appearance of females in the womb and are converted in males. Many things can prevent this.
Right. IIRC, 34% of statistics are exhaustingly specific answers to surprisingly misleading questions, 22% are imposingly far-reaching conjecture on ridiculously small sample sizes, 44% are just made up on the spot, and the remaining 15% are conducted by people who can't even add up to 100?
If she's a Girl fo' sho'
It's in her kiss!
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
That isn't even slightly true. People's ring and their index fingers are generally the same length, and any variation has nothing to do with gender.
Hell, even if it did, it would just be due to hormones, and if you want to know what hormones were flowing around a person's body during their development, an easier method is to pull their pants down.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/695142.stm
While it may not be true 100% of the time, this study has shown otherwise. There is a difference, and there are correlations that actually show a difference in gay and lesbian finger sizes.
Now, that's not to say that finger size is the end all way to look at gender... I just said it was an interesting tidbit. I suppose it could even be used as a factor, because it's a tad rare to have a surgery to shorten your fingers.
I agree - why should gender matter? Women want equality so give it to them. If they can't compete then that's their problem. If they can then they deserve to compete against the best (male, female, or other). I can't imagine something much more hurtful than someone attacking you or gender. You take a woman that probably got teased a lot and overlooked by men because she is a bit manly and then you publicly accuse her of not being a woman? That's just mean.
I think designer babies is something we'll have to deal with in the not to distant future. Genetically modified people designed to be stronger, faster, etc. Are we going to allow them? But then are we going to exclude people whose whole family tree is full of professional athletes for having naturally received the same benefits?
Keep it simple and classify people based on how well they play and have them compete with other players in their own class?
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I once was chatting with a programmer about female programmers.
He told me (and we were actually having a joke about it) about the bicycle test. If you ask a girl to draw a bicycle, it doesn't matter if artistically it's lame, usually (he said) women will draw a bicycle that mechanically it can't work (the chain will be missing or connected to the wrong part). They will design a piece that it will fail to function (they are missing the details). But most men will draw one that works in the details (petals, chain, right placed). I don't know if it's true but we were joking once about it.
As for programming girls, even if I don't want to spread stereotypes I will tell you my statistics. I once was quite obsessed discovering girls (especially in the demoscene) who can code and I was the creator of some stupid site called "The Female computer entities" (which make me feel silly when I think about it). From all the sample, most of the ones who actually made some good stuff or could even code assembly had something odd happening with their gender. The ones that were more "feminine" were writting the bad stuff and few of them argued that some people don't like their code because they are female (which was not true, I mean about the code stuff not the female stuff). It's like I could guess whether a female has a more male brain by her quality of work at code. Although exceptions might arise. I don't want to spread a stereotype but just to discuss from my experiences.
And thinking about that when a geek friend dreams of an ubercoder girlfriend we tell him to be carefull, joking of course :)
The "H-Word" has died for me.
Simple. Check his/her phone usage, shopping habits and car parking abilites.
But first. There dont exist any clear line between men and women. We're all different.
Many sports have wight-classes. Why dont all sports have that. Why are 100kg people
not allowed to compete against each other in high-jump??! (and so on)
Sport is only healthy upto a point. After that we get money and cheating and people hurting themselfs. That's why i've stopped watching elite sports.
We should all stop attend/watch (pay) these events that put result before well-beeing.
Bolt just runs as fast as he can. Nothing special at all. So do we all when we run 100m.
(gotta stop now bfore i'm too far off topic)
nature pulled the same trick that the soviet block came up?
i think there is more then one half-joke about female east-german hammer throw athletes growing a mustache...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Anyone who stands any significant chance of winning should be banned. If you don't do this, it's unfair to everyone else. Nondiscrimination means that athletes should be awarded medals based only on random number generation.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
What model would you suggest for the highest levels of competition?
How about a model that allows women, or anyone claiming to be a woman who is not clearly a man, to compete with men voluntarily, and one that requires women who consistently rank near the best in their field AND who would occasionally medal against men be required to compete only in men's divisions, in essence saying "Tes, you are a woman, but we all know the sporting world gives women the handicap of not having to compete against men, you are good enough you don't need that handicap. Congratulations."
Maybe I should whine that there ought to be a sporting category for "people with unfit bodies that are crap at sports", so I have a chance of winning...
Actually, this works well in recreational leagues. Many recreational leagues divide people by ability. You can "move up" on request if you don't mind being humiliated or you deliberately want to be schooled, but you can't "move down" below your natural ability and you can be "forced up" if you are too good.
Some recreational leagues are co-ed and specify the numbers of men and women on each team. This works well for team sports but not individual sports.
Marathons are usually run with all genders mixed together, but there is usually a "best male" and "best female" gold, silver, and bronze.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Seems like we here at Shashdot wouldn't be very good at determining how to tell if a person is female. Seeing as we never get to see them.
It seems tempting to define "male" as "testosterone enhanced" and female as "not testosterone enhanced". Of course the long-lasting effects of testosterone lasting some time, those thinking to have a sex change to get into the easier category would be excluded right there. It would also mean that women like this would get to compete against men, and given they are not disadvantaged by hormones, possibly win. Now that would be interesting.
I do not know why people here are talking about so unnecessary things like chromosomes, and related 'I'm too smart' stuff when back in '86 Crocodile Dundee showed us all how to know if someone is a woman, in case of doubt.
Hang on a sec.. I am sure there're girly men that lost some track titles. What about them??
They should just check the bloody plumbing, if its all there == female.
Having some genetic edge isn't a reason to be disqualified. What do they call that again...
Oh yeah, Evolution...
Instead of putting athletes into two groups named "male" and "female", put them into multiple groups based on hormone levels, muscle mass, body proportions and intellectual capabilities. And then merge "normal" olympics with special olympics an paralympics...
This is great. As a male to female transsexual, I must say it's absolutely great to see a genetic girl get clocked. Hahahaha. Good luck folks.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
Boys have penis, girls have vagina.
ever hear of witches milk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch's_milk
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Paula Radcliffe would have competed successfully against most men (as would many top women runners). Venus and Serena Williams serve in average faster than Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal.
In many sports the differentiation is based on misogynistic views of what women can achieve.
Yes, there is a clear difference in performance, and perhaps women would rarely, if at all win, if competing against men, but that does not mean they could not compete with distinction.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
he's probably male.
"You can't really dust for vomit" --Nigel Tufnel
Which is not the same.
Women running marathons and other endurance sports would regularly find themselves competing favourably against many men, reaching good positions, but certainly they will rarely win.
You just have to check times to come to this simple realization.
Having said that times are roughly 50 years behind those of men, which is roughly the amount of time that women's sports were kept out of the mainstream (Olympics mostly).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can have all the genetic advantages you want, if you don't put up the work you will not be a world class athlete.
The history of sports is littered with the names of people that achieved more than what they were supposed to achieve but that succeeded thanks to their determination.
What makes you a world class athlete is hard graft, what makes you a legend is having a lucky genetic make up on top of your hard work.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There are sports people who overcame disadvantages that made "obivous" they will not make it.,
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The performance of female athletes has been on a exponential increase for some time and is expected to catch male performance levels in many sports in the next century.
Part of the reason why is because many countries stopped enslaving all females for procreation, sex and domestic maintenance. So girls can play like boys now. Woman can become athletes rather birthing children until they are empty worn out husks
African continent still has lots of issues facing women's equality but some barriers have been lifted and we will see more than one gifted unique athlete come out of the woodwork.
Someday...there probably will no longer be the need for gender categorizations for some elite sports.
"All top-ranked athletes are genetic freaks".
Kenyans have an excellent development athletics program. They used to figure only in distance running but now they are beginning to compete in 800m.
Jamaicans ditto, but they have concentrated in sprints.
The common factor is how hard these athletes work.
Asafa Powell, the Jamaican athlete pointed out that British sprinters are simply lazy ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/8166011.stm ).
Kenyans running and training elsewhere have similar histories about local athletes simply now wanting to train more in order to improve their performance (I am familiar with the situation in Mexico, in interviews I have read the Kenyans point to the lack of commitment from local athletes. Many Mexicans live in similar high altitude conditions to those found in Kenya, and when good training has been provided Mexican runners have won important Marathons and one held the 10000m record, so clearly genetics is not playing part on this).
In Mexico we had 2 good 400m runners for a few years. Funnily enough we found some more that were impulsed by these examples, prompting Mexico to field credibly teams in the distance for the first time ever.
At the end hard work is the most important determinant, genetics may come into play only in exceptional situations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So will you use such sensitive language when telling a female familiar that has lost both ovaries to cancer?
No you are a neuter! Freak!
I can actually picture you acting like that....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... is normally prompted by making stupid statement.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The issue is that women compete separately from men. As long as you separate the sexes, they cannot be equal. The fact that we compete separately is in itself sexist. All arguments beyond this would be simply arguing the degree of sexism.
...then what does that do to the whole 'gay and lesbian' marriage situation? I mean, if we're not able to sort people with 100% certainty into different sporting event categories, then how are we able to determine that 'marriage is between one man and one woman'? We can't even seem to agree on the difference between the genders. What if there isn't any difference any more?
This is definitely food for thought for me.
TITS or GTFO!!!
Be seeing you...
I had a girlfriend that had a growth hormone insufficiency and was given the drugs to inject herself when she was 10 or so, so I suspect the same would be true for a fully grown transgender person.
"If they get lost first and then can't open the jar - its a girl!"
Hey asshole moderator, that is called a joke! Not flamebait!
Its idiots like you who cause terrorism.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The ancient greeks are rolling in their graves right now. If she's got two X chromosomes, just drop it. Hell, if it were up to the ancient greeks, they'd just want to know that she didn't have a prong in her trousers.
Show me some credible developmental process of genetics, neurology or hormones that makes you think you're a turtle AND demonstrate that there's no treatment that will return you to awareness that you're a human being, and THEN show me that you can have some hormone treatments and surgery and live out your life happily and without further maladjustment as a turtle, and sure, I'll drive you to the vet myself. That's the case with transgender and intersex, so I think that's a fair yardstick.
I'm one! Ask me!
A yardstick that works only and specifically for the case you're trying to prove hardly seems fair.
See how our swimmer has her nose on the back of her head, yeah that's a rare genetic disorder.