to say women don't have XY chromosomes?

[taylorswift1989]

Seeing a lot of posts on social media with people admitting they were "wrong" to call Imane Khelif a man, and that they now understand "she's a woman with XY chromosomes."

Am I going insane? A person with XY chromosomes is male! (Regardless of how they identify, of course.) Why are people saying stuff that is obviously nonsensical? Are people really that ignorant of basic biological facts?

Wow! It's all coming out now.

What’s the point in female champions if they’re no better than “shit men”?

The point is that they are the best competitors from their sex class. The male champions are the best competitors from their sex class. Sports have developed to test the things that males are particularly good at as a result of going through male puberty. In some sports females can give them a run for their money, but these are absolutely exceptional cases, and as such get a huge amount of attention.

Image attached is Jasmine Paris, UK ultrarunner, vet and mother, who is the first woman ever to finish the incredibly taxing Barkley Marathons earlier this year. She wasn't the first finisher but she got most of the attention because it was such an astounding achievement for a woman.

I think it’s where you wear your sexuality on the outside of your body. Much like an exoskeleton.

We know he has testes because his body makes testosterone.

@Qanat53 Since women's bodies also make testosterone don't think you can presume that

The IBA has said the tests were not about high testosterone. The boxer did not insist on an appeal against the ruling.

Why not?

Give over! He had a genetic test that said XY, he is a man.

The continued discussion on whether male people who beat female athletes in competition should be called 'shit' or 'mediocre' is just a distraction.

Whatever categorisation is used, it is remarkable to see people who post about their qualifications not showing the basic understanding about how competitive advantage works.

That just because a male athlete loses against any female competitor, that does not mean they don't have a competitive advantage, it does mean that they are no where in the league of the male people that they should be competing with. It does not mean that those not-competitive-in-the-correct- sex-category-for-their-sexed-body athletes should ever have been included in the female protected sports category.

If Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner had decided to transition in the 70s would you have supported his/her right to compete in every womens running event in the Olympics? Because really there would have been no need for him/her to race at all, they could have just awarded the gold to him/her at the outset. Where would this have left the female runners? Competing for silver and bronze only and that would be reasonable would it?

He's going to be rich now and the women he's punched out are being abused and derided as bad losers and will fade into oblivion.

Nike will be giving him a huge contract for being a female Olympian. Brands will line up to promote their diversity.

Kids will learn that cheating in the Olympics is cool, all the old white men in the Olympics that can't tell their arse an from their elbow and facilitated this shit show will be conveniently forgotten and we will be expected to celebrate the diversity of female bodies with pictures of this poor racially abused man as he becomes richer and richer off the adulation of socialist anti capitalists.

Semanya showed them how it's done.

Again, I ask, why is it the women that have to shift up and make room for these utterly gross, deluded (and/or) calculating individuals?

Wow. Are these the only categories you allocate to people born with these genetic complications?

"Utterly gross" Dems the breaks eh?

@Bambooshoot

Healthy female people do not have testosterone that even comes close to overlapping male people's (under 50 years old) testosterone .

This is a very weak argument.

This is just bollocks, sorry. So we do away with sex testing and just allow men who identify as women into female categories - is that what you’re saying ?

Tandora. You don’t seem to have answered my question. Should a ‘transman’ box in the female category?

@Bambooshoot I know. 🙄

I was literally responding to the sentence I quoted which presumed to know physiology from an a variable fact.

Why am I spouting nonsense? What part of what I have said is scientifically incorrect? Biological sex is not simple in some humans.

you might not like that, it might not agree with your principals and thinking that XY is always male and XX is always female.

But it’s scientifically correct to say ‘it’s not always straightforward’.

male puberty leads to changes in muscle and bone that doesn’t happen in female puberty, so it matters which puberty a body has gone through. This has a direct baring on fairness and safety.

please show me where my scientific errors are because clearly my time at university must have been wasted.

To be consistent the answer would have to be “no”. I wouldn’t fancy their chances though.

*Healthy female people do not have testosterone that even comes close to overlapping male people's (under 50 years old) testosterone .

This is a very weak argument.

@Helleofabore*

It's not an argument! It s just pointing out the statement is inconclusive.

I've just seen an interview where it's said that the checks were made because of complaints from numerous coaches.

Such a shame it doesn't always work out well for women.

https://www.cgwall.com/sports/female-volleyball-player-payton-mcnabb-now-battles-to-defend-womens-sports-after-a-guy-caused-her-to-become-partially-paralyzed/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/49298550

Nobody seemed to care when she was losing.

How remarkable to describe female sports as surviving male inclusion when we have the current female USA cyclocross dominated with 70+ wins by male people.

When we have the North Sydney Flying Bats football team with 5 male players in the female football league meaning that some teams have lost up to 25 players (that is just one team!) and at least one female player has publicly stated that they had a sporting-career finishing injury due to a collision with one of those male players.

Shall we keep listing these issues? Or are they just dismissable because they are to be considered as 'not destroying' female sports as a whole...

Remarkable, really remarkable, coming from someone who insists they are a feminist.

Not true

Apologies, I quoted the wrong post! Sorry about that.

The misogyny on this thread is palpable.

How about we get rid of male and female categories altogether. We could have instead xx people and then everyone else (others) say who does not want to be subjected to a cheek swab.

Would that work?