Surprisingly clear news article from Australia re XY humans competing at Olympics in female sports

They can label me whatever they like, it's still their own religious terminology that I don't acknowledge as meaningful.

The experience of 'identifying as a woman' that i hear described by others has absolutely no resonance for me. I've no doubt that I have common ground with trans people here in thinking that I have no control if others decide to label me as cisgender, but it doesn't change what I actually am.

Same plus I find it quite offensive

If you aren't transgender then you are cisgender.

"Cisgender" is your religious terminology. I don't recognise it as meaningful because I don't believe in your religion.

No, you are either a man or a transman (conceived female but identifying as a man) a woman or a transwoman (conceived male but identifying as a woman).

No need for any pointless prefixes. Or the use of the ill-defined word “gender” at all.

No, your definition was

cisgender
adjective
describing or connected with people whose sense of personal identity and gender is the same as their birth sex

We've pointed out that we don't have a gender and therefore do not fit the definition of cisgender as posted by you

Which dictionary definition are you using which says cisgender is anyone who isn't trans? I am confused as to why you post a definition and then say it's actually something else.

If you aren't transgender then you are cisgender.

Don't like it? Debate it with the dictionary managers, not me.

Five times.

They're not the only words that have lost meaning.

No answer about how to refer to people who are neither cis nor trans then @Christinapple ?

"captured by gender ideology"

Yeah, these are just buzz-words thrown around a lot that have lost meaning at this point.

And you named two of the best universities in the world, which doesn't help whatever point you're trying to make.

Ooh, the boxing match is attracting all sorts of attention. Surely they have to do something before the next round...

Well, the BBC acknowledged the controversy but lied about the boxers' ineligibility, saying it was based on testosterone levels.

Another complaint on its way, quoting the IBA statement.

As a number of us have proved we're not cisgender as per your dictionary definition @Christinapple , how should we be referred to? I checked the definition you posted of transgender too and I'm not that either.

It’s never helpful.

The farce of a boxing match today was one of the headlines of the BBC 6 o'clock news.

Let's see what the story says.

I, too, think that requiring male athletes to lower their testosterone levels in order to compete in the women's categories does place an undue burden upon them - but that's because I think that (a) Woman is not a club with an initiation ritual, and (b) obliging female athletes to compete against male athletes places an undue burden upon the female athletes.

If, hypothetically, lowering testosterone did fully equalise male advantage it would be reasonable to say that it was an unfair burden to require anyone to lower it below the top of the normal female range. Requiring an average level would be unfair.

But it doesn't, so the point is moot.

I don't feel gender, either. I just am.

Actually, it would. Some men become unwell when they lower their testosterone too much (for them).

The stupid thing is that serum testosterone is neither here nor there. TAs persuaded the IOC to use it as a measure of advantage, but it's not. Otherwise the guy with the highest testosterone would win the male events.
It's the building work that testosterone does at puberty which matters.

The international federation works with the athlete to make sure that testosterone levels as needed are realistic, that they don’t put an undue burden on the athlete.

Are they saying that requiring an athlete with XY chromosomes to reduce his testosterone to a mere 2-3 x the female maximum, in order to compete in the female category, would put an undue burden on him?

And do this on a beach on a class trip.

Personal identity, kinda. But only in the sense that having a female body has been such a fundamental part of my lived experience, such as being pregnant and giving birth. I don't see how I could have those parts of my identity if I had grown up in a male body.

Gender, no. Gender can get in the fucking bin. In order to have a sense of gender that was the same as my female sex I would need to agree that stereotypes like pink and makeup and dolls are inherently female, which I don't.

no.

And I agree, I therefore am not 'cis' either. Because that is philosophical belief only and it is someone else's philosophical belief at that. I don't have to comply with the demand to categorise myself in a way that is not based on material reality.

No.