Notices by Radek Czajka (rcz@101010.pl)

@rysiek @darnell

What you did in your hypothetical is to point to a (theoretical and unspecified) safety concern NOT related to sex, and complain that sex category didn't remove it. You're applying an impossible standard: you demand that when sex category is established, then no safety concern must ever present for any reason ever, even theoretically.

We don't expect that standard from any other measure.

Yes, sex testing would mostly affect female sport, that's true.

No, for nearly all athletes, except only for the very rare cases where more diagnostics after screening is required for health reasons anyway, it's a cheek swab. This is not invasive.

@rysiek @darnell
Still, you're proposing highly invasive testing based on a hypothetical problem. You only proposed that there could theoretically be such people — who are these people?

There could be 8 year old boys who have the physique of 15 year old boys — it is possible! — which would prove a safety concern in children sports based on age categories. Do we now, based on that possibility we have now identified, say that age categories have failed, and do we seriously propose replacing them with extensive invasive testing across the board?

@rysiek @darnell
Yes.

@rysiek @darnell
I don't know, but let's say it is.

@rysiek @darnell
What you proposing is more invasive testing which would still end up with Amal in the category with all the males. Why would you want to do that? Just to avoid the word “sex”?

I mean, think about it: age affects a lot of sport-related things, that's why we have age categories — so you could also measure those things instead of checking a person's age.

Sure, but why?

@rysiek @darnell
I did bring chromosomes into the hypothetical scenario for clearer context, yes. I did not say chromosomes define sex. They don't.

BTW, I do also think there is a valid case for some XY people to be included in female sport category. 5-ARD is just not one of these cases.

I don't think there is a singular test to clearly and unambiguously establish sex. Chromosome testing is a fairly good screen, but there can be more diagnostics needed in some rare cases (diagnostics which provide information which those people need anyway for health reasons).

Men with XX chromosomes should not be considered female, because they don't follow female development path.

@rysiek @darnell
Surely!

@rysiek @darnell
No, at no point did I say XY chromosomes “define a male person”.

@rysiek @darnell

I think this is very misguided (and wishful thinking). There are still huge differences between sexes in muscle mass and strength, bone density etc., leading to serious safety concerns, even after controlling for these other categories such as weight, age and disability.

(Yes, there are attributes which should not, for good reasons, be used for categorizing sport,s such as race or self-defined identity).

@rysiek @darnell

No, men with XX chromosomes who benefit from male development should not participate in female disciplines. Why should they?

And frankly, the unjustified associations you present here are stupid and insulting.

@rysiek @darnell

I've disscussed the “Phelps argument” in some length here:
https://101010.pl/@rcz/112959498924669006

TL;DR:
We don't have categories for Phelps' quirks. We could have, and then we would expect Phelps to be in the category for people with these quirts and would very much exclude him from the category for people without these quirks. That's how categories work.
But the advantage due to Phelps' quirks was actually relatively small, compared to the *huge* advantage due to sex. We don't have categories for all advantages, but there are reasons we do have categories for some advantages.

And no, it's NOT true that ”sports-related benefits” are only problematic when sex is involved. We do also create (and police) other categories related to sports-related benefits, and do not let people with those benefits into categories without those benefits, for well-understood reasons. There are age categories, weight categories, disability categories. I wouldn't be able to get into a children boxing competition, because I do have a “problematic” sports-related benefit of not being a child.

But let's dig a bit. Let's introduce another hypothetical person, let's call him Bob. Bob is just a plain guy. He's quite sporty and also trains kick-boxing, but he is the only male kick-boxing enthusiast in the area, so he feels left out when the women have their competition. He asks if it maybe the next competition could be organized as open-category, so that he could participate too and kick-box with the women.

Do you think it's fine to let Bob into the ring with the women? Do you think, for example, that there are any safety reasons not to let men kick-box with women?

@MisuseCase

You're misinformed (or lying). This isn't about “conformity”, and XY people with 5-alpha-reductase defficiency do not have any “female anatomy”.

@rysiek @darnell

@rysiek @darnell

Does it follow? Maybe. It's just a different discussion. We can have that discussion at some point also, bathrooms do have practical and safety-related issues and it's a whole topic. But why do you want to pivot from the topic we're actually discussing?

You asked me a series of questions on this sports issue, but what do you think?

We now know, and Amal knows, that Amal enjoys full sports-related benefit of male development, because this condition doesn't affect it. Amal still wants to take part in a women's kick-boxing competition.

Do you think it's fine?

@rysiek @darnell

Really, you've decided to pivot to The Bathroom Issue instead of actually engaging with the actual issue we're discussing?

Do you accept that your understanding of this controversy as of two hours ago was wrong on the level of facts, and that you've now learned important additional facts changing this understanding?

Did this realization push you to actually make an effort to reevaluate your opinion?

@rysiek @darnell

I've only added the chromosome thing for clearer context, as, as I said, 5-alpha-reductase deficiency only affects males anyway. But sure, we can get back to that if something isn't clear here.

No, in my opinion Amal should not be allowed to participate in sports as a woman.

Yes, Amal should definitely be allowed to participate in sports as a man.

I don't understand the last question. What has nobody notices until now? Amal has definitely noticed “something is off”. After being mistakenly assigned female at birth, Amal might have not noticed anything until puberty. But then, when menstruation doesn't start, and instead external male genitalia do belatedly appear, Amal definitely noticed that — understandably very embarrassing and confusing — development.

@rysiek
There are multiple conflicting definitions of “gender” — I take it here to be a synonym for “sex”, but you're free to specify a different meaning.

If the test shows Amal is a XY person with 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, that would mean Amal is male.

@rysiek

I try to engage in a respectful discussion of a complex subject, so I will choose to take your request at face value, ignoring the obvious, while unwarranted, sarcastic undertone.

The controversy is about DSDs.
Particularly, about 5-alpha-reductase defficiency — a condition affecting male sex development in a way which leads to new-born boys being mistaken for girls, because of undeveloped extenal genitalia.

There is no suggestion of anyone being transgender in any of these cases, so the whole discussion of countries being LGBT-hostile is entirely irrelevant.

@darnell @muiren

@rysiek
You are very misinformed on the nature of this controversy. It has nothing to do with being transgender. Please educate yourself before making harsh judgements.

@clacke @rysiek Obviously, expressing uninvited challenges to people's stories is rude in most social situations, even when we doubt they're true. That's not controversial, that's basic politeness.

@rysiek coming from an still overwhelmingly Catholic country, I see a big part of raising kids in teaching them to trust their own mental abilities. I see a lot of religious upbringing centered around inculcating shame around asking _some_ questions you're not supposed to ask even yourself, and doubting _some_ things you're not supposed to doubt. The whole “sinned in thought” idea.

I understand you're talking about some specific context of interjecting someone else's conversation to challenge them, when it's none of your business. Fine.

But if you find yourself doubting stuff, you just are, that's just your mind at work. You might be wrong or inconsistent, and there's always room to improve your thinking.

But I won't ever be teaching my kids any version of “doubting is bad”.