987
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
987 points (92.0% liked)
The Onion
4699 readers
713 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Most sports are dominated by people with genetic gifts. But having a little extra testosterone from a genetic quirk is a completely different thing than having extra testosterone because you were born with testes.
Yet the end result is the same, an advantage over those that don't have it. Why is one fair and one unfair?
Sport is arbitrary rules we decide. Some trans athletes are going to be better at some sports, not because of their trans status but because they work hard and train lots. It is just as unfair to exclude them in case another trans athlete has a genetic advantage, that most research says they don't have.
Do you have evidence that a cis woman with high testosterone remotely experiences the amount of testosterone produced by testes?
Sure https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159262/
Also that trans athletes don't have an advantage after starting hormone therapy. https://www.cces.ca/sites/default/files/content/docs/pdf/transgenderwomenathletesandelitesport-ascientificreview-e-final.pdf
Although there are other studies which show an advantage for running (not at elite level)
Why?
We know things are different because of the way that they are.
It is one thing to have a quirk of the same organs, it’s another to be born with a different organ that effectively produces performance enhancing hormones.
But fine, then ban cis-women with unnaturally high testosterone.
Atypical of the vast majority
The definition is literally “not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events”. How is that a redefinition?
Normal COURSE of events, i.. not normal for a woman in general terms.
People commonly have high cholesterol. It’s still considered abnormal when you get a lipid panel back.
You said it sarcastically, but doesn't that truly address the situation that you and others believe is occurring, in a non-discriminatory way?