Caster Semenya could be forced to undertake hormone therapy for future Olympics

[ttaskmaster]

Why not address it? She's a biological male after all.

Because the point being addressed is about testosterone itself, and naturally high levels of it, and the question over whether athletes of either sex have any advantage over their genetic and biological peers as a result.

Why? Are you confused by people with partial sensitivity or are you confused by the presence of other factors impacting performance? It's unclear what argument you're attempting to make there or how it relates to this case?

Because some genetic males are allowed to compete as women, where others are not, just on the basis of their body's response to natural testosterone during competitive performance... yet you still say it's not just about testosterone.
The only confusion is why you would make such an assertion in the face of that, when it is clearly the only thing being measured.

No that doesn't logically follow, I didn't say it's not relevant to the discussion, try to read more carefully, you're just getting confused over quite straightforward arguments yet again. That she's got odd junk is the reason for her identity, it has nothing directly to do with athletic performance (read my post again where I literally said that already). How is that hard to follow?

I'm discussing testosterone and a regulation based on it.
You directly respond to that with, "that she has a micro peen and a hole is kinda irrelevant to that".
I not ony question the accuracy of that oddly specific assertion and wonder how you have come to believe this to be a fact, but also its relevance, with the presumption that it must have some else you'd not bother to mention it.

In short - How d'ya know she's got a dick, Dowie?

Are you sure about that as it appears you're still conflating gender and sex... do you want to try again - what specifically is the issue with the source calling her a woman?

It doesn't matter to the regulations what she identifies as - This is about "biology rather than legal status", and since Semenya and several other athletes are being put through the wringer over their genetics, it seems a considerably disingenuous **** take to then start using 'gender identity' terms at them, while at the same time declaring them something else.

It's not necessary for people competing in male sports and athletic events to prove they are male because there is no competitive advantage to being female in almost any sport.
The 'fairness' is ensured by the removal of males from women's sports.

And yet the current regulations do allow some genetic males to compete in womens' sports...
But the 'fairness' is simply about everybody having to go through the same hardships. So to be fair, why not genetically test males - It's not going to impact them in any way (right?) and it shows solidarity with their female counterparts.

 

[dowie]

Because the point being addressed is about testosterone itself, and naturally high levels of it, and the question over whether athletes of either sex have any advantage over their genetic and biological peers as a result.

That's not a good reason to ignore this point.

Because some genetic males are allowed to compete as women, where others are not, just on the basis of their body's response to natural testosterone during competitive performance... yet you still say it's not just about testosterone.

Correct greater athletic ability in males is not just about current levels of testosterone, you pointing out that fact re: those specific types of males doesn't negate what I said. Do you not understand why they might differ somewhat? That they've not gone through male puberty for example?

The only confusion is why you would make such an assertion in the face of that, when it is clearly the only thing being measured.

That's on you.

I'm discussing testosterone and a regulation based on it.
You directly respond to that with, "that she has a micro peen and a hole is kinda irrelevant to that".
I not ony question the accuracy of that oddly specific assertion and wonder how you have come to believe this to be a fact, but also its relevance, with the presumption that it must have some else you'd not bother to mention it.

In short - How d'ya know she's got a dick, Dowie?

Basic anatomy, she's intersex, the "clit" is the dick. That's how human fetuses start out.

It doesn't matter to the regulations what she identifies as - This is about "biology rather than legal status", and since Semenya and several other athletes are being put through the wringer over their genetics, it seems a considerably disingenuous **** take to then start using 'gender identity' terms at them, while at the same time declaring them something else.

Why make a fuss over it then? You're just going off on some pointless tangent, either you understand that there was a reference to gender in using her prefered pronouns in which case there is no contradiction there or you didn't understand that and it's now been clarified for you - either way whats the relevance here?

And yet the current regulations do allow some genetic males to compete in womens' sports...

In rather different circumstances.. what is your point?

But the 'fairness' is simply about everybody having to go through the same hardships. So to be fair, why not genetically test males - It's not going to impact them in any way (right?) and it shows solidarity with their female counterparts.

Because that doesn't achieve anything, you're advocating for some pointless, intrusive exercise to take place out of some vague personal belief that it will show "solidarity" you don't have a strong argument there.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's not a good reason to ignore this point.

It wasn't what I was talking about, therefore I have no reason to address it.

Correct greater athletic ability in males is not just about current levels of testosterone, you pointing out that fact re: those specific types of males doesn't negate what I said. Do you not understand why they might differ somewhat? That they've not gone through male puberty for example?

Doesn't matter - I'm talking specifically about natural testosterone levels and the regulations that hinge solely on this value.

That's on you.

Then I can only surmise you're talking **** and have no proper answer.

Basic anatomy, she's intersex, the "clit" is the dick. That's how human fetuses start out.

Oh, if you're taking that road, then she actually has a clit just without the 'broken chromosome' mutilation to make it a 'dick'... since that's how humans start out.
Either way, you have made an assertion without providing any proof beyond a common assumption that since some 5αR2D people present with an actual micropenis that Semenya does too.

Why make a fuss over it then? You're just going off on some pointless tangent, either you understand that there was a reference to gender in using her prefered pronouns in which case there is no contradiction there or you didn't understand that and it's now been clarified for you - either way whats the relevance here?

I didn't make a fuss over it - You did.
My point has remained unchanged since before you stuck your oar in.

In rather different circumstances.. what is your point?

Both circumstances hinge on the flawed assumption, by both the IAAF and others, that high levels of natural testosterone provide ongoing performance advantages.

Because that doesn't achieve anything, you're advocating for some pointless, intrusive exercise to take place out of some vague personal belief that it will show "solidarity" you don't have a strong argument there.

No more pointless than subjecting women to intrusive examinations and regulations based on science that medical specialists refute as flawed...
Who knows, you might even find some of these 'men' are actually genetic females... and just maybe you'll actually find evidence of doping which, after all, is the purpose for which the IAAF originally (mis)represented these tests.

 

[dowie]

Doesn't matter - I'm talking specifically about natural testosterone levels and the regulations that hinge solely on this value.

In relation to a completely different intersex type... what is your point?

Oh, if you're taking that road, then she actually has a clit just without the 'broken chromosome' mutilation to make it a 'dick'... since that's how humans start out.
Either way, you have made an assertion without providing any proof beyond a common assumption that since some 5αR2D people present with an actual micropenis that Semenya does too.

It's the same thing, what is the relevance here, why are you taking issue with some description that has nothing to do with athletic ability?

I didn't make a fuss over it - You did.
My point has remained unchanged since before you stuck your oar in.

You did - you feigned confusion/highlighted an apparent contradiction in me referring to her as a biological male and using she/her pronouns when there is no contradiction. I didn't stick my oar in you directly addressed that complaint at me and I replied to you... you don't appear to have a point there and unsurprisingly are now being evasive.

Both circumstances hinge on the flawed assumption, by both the IAAF and others, that high levels of natural testosterone provide ongoing performance advantages.

That's not a flawed assumption in the cases where people are sensitive to it.

No more pointless than subjecting women to intrusive examinations and regulations based on science that medical specialists refute as flawed...
Who knows, you might even find some of these 'men' are actually genetic females... and just maybe you'll actually find evidence of doping which, after all, is the purpose for which the IAAF originally (mis)represented these tests.

No there is a clear reason there.

 

[ttaskmaster]

In relation to a completely different intersex type... what is your point?

In relation to several intersex types, none of which are specifically this case, but all of which are being decided by the one factor I did address in the point - Hence not addressing something that is not the point being raised.

It's the same thing, what is the relevance here, why are you taking issue with some description that has nothing to do with athletic ability?

For the same reason you're bringing up something that has nothing to do with athletic ability.

You did - you feigned confusion/highlighted an apparent contradiction in me referring to her as a biological male and using she/her pronouns when there is no contradiction. I didn't stick my oar in you directly addressed that complaint at me and I replied to you... you don't appear to have a point there and unsurprisingly are now being evasive.

You stuck your oar in when you claimed I was "trying" a semantic argument, yet here you are arguing the very same semantics.
Saying you refer to her as 'her' out of some assumed respect for her gender identity is not much use here unless you want to obfuscate.

That's not a flawed assumption in the cases where people are sensitive to it.

It's a flawed assumption that testosterone is what provides any ongoing advantage, and one that has been challenged by various medical specialists.
If you disagree, show me the proof. Show me how those who achieve the highest performances in their categories are always those with higher testosterone levels.

No there is a clear reason there.

You gonna be any less vague, or is the only purpose of this pointless statement to get the last word in?

 

[Junglist]

Something something something Strong Woman.

 

[sidimmu]

Dude's a dude, should not be competing in female competition's.

Done, lets move on.

 

[dowie]

You stuck your oar in when you claimed I was "trying" a semantic argument, yet here you are arguing the very same semantics.
Saying you refer to her as 'her' out of some assumed respect for her gender identity is not much use here unless you want to obfuscate.

Eh? It's got nothing to do with obfuscating anything. I simply referred to her as "her", which doesn't constitute an argument about sex, nor is referring to her as "her" and stating that she's a biological male a contradiction, I've got no idea why you're hung up on that?

If you do understand that those things (gender identity and biological sex) are often referred to separately these days then what point are you even trying to argue there? If you didn't and it was previously unclear it shouldn't be hard to follow now it's been clarified for you.

The only other points you seem to have here are that testosterone isn't relevant for people with a completely different condition who aren't affected by it (so what?) and some wierd argument that people entering male events should be tested too for "solidarity"?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Eh? It's got nothing to do with obfuscating anything. I simply referred to her as "her", which doesn't constitute an argument about sex, nor is referring to her as "her" and stating that she's a biological male a contradiction, I've got no idea why you're hung up on that?

OK, so when I address a specific perspective that does not include an individual's identity, you incorrectly "presume" that I am "conflating" the terms, in an "attempt to obfuscate", which you imply is not a good thing, and yet you seem to think it's fine for you to adopt that same approach, because you're doing it out of "respect"?
My original point was one of social morality, not biology nor of gender identity.

The only other points you seem to have here are that testosterone isn't relevant for people with a completely different condition who aren't affected by it (so what?) and some wierd argument that people entering male events should be tested too for "solidarity"?

That testosterone, as asserted by the IAAF, isn't as relevant for any athlete, according to various studies... and that the IAAF's female-only testing is unfairly discriminatory, as acknowledged by the CAS yet permitted only due to lack of any better immediate option.
Solution for the first - Wider research, on both sides. Solution for the second - Test everyone, as the simplest and fairest solution.

Meanwhile, my point as to the issue remains:
Someone born externally male-presenting can get modified (medicinally and/or surgically) and is allowed to compete as a female.
Someone born externally female-presenting cannot compete as a female, without being forced to under go surgical or medicinal modification.

You don't see the moral can of worms with that?

 

[dowie]

OK, so when I address a specific perspective that does not include an individual's identity, you incorrectly "presume" that I am "conflating" the terms, in an "attempt to obfuscate", which you imply is not a good thing, and yet you seem to think it's fine for you to adopt that same approach, because you're doing it out of "respect"?

I've got no idea why you're stuck on that when it's so basic, referring to her as "her" and stating she's biologically male is not contradictory or an attempt to obfuscate. It's just treating gender identity and biological sex as separate things.

Meanwhile, my point as to the issue remains:
Someone born externally male-presenting can get modified (medicinally and/or surgically) and is allowed to compete as a female.
Someone born externally female-presenting cannot compete as a female, without being forced to under go surgical or medicinal modification.

You've just made two assertions/observations, it's missing an argument.

In both cases, either subset of biological males will need to lower their testosterone levels if they wish to compete with females - what exactly is your issue with that? You seemed to think that testosterone doesn't have much effect on performance and yet Caster seems quite keen to remove the limits and didn't perform as well under them, strange that.

I don't personally think trans "women" should be able to compete (your first example) but that doesn't affect whether or not intersex "women" competing is fair or not if in both cases they've been through male puberty.

(Have added " " around "women" so as to avoid any more feigned confusion re: gender identity on your part.)

 

[ttaskmaster]

It's just treating gender identity and biological sex as separate things.

And yet when I did exactly this, you stuck your oar in and got your presuming panties all in a twist, accusing me of attempting to obfuscate.

In both cases, either subset of biological males will need to lower their testosterone levels if they wish to compete with females - what exactly is your issue with that?

The trans athletes have personally chosen to be the way they are and have deliberately been modified of their own volition. That's fine, it's their choice, it's up to them, and they're doing pretty well out of it.
By contrast, the intersex athletes are being forced to alter themselves from their natural state, presumably against their wishes, despite having lived their lives on the understanding that they were female. My issue is that this latter case is very wrong from an ethical and moral standpoint.

You seemed to think that testosterone doesn't have much effect on performance and yet Caster seems quite keen to remove the limits and didn't perform as well under them, strange that.

I don't "seem" anything - I quite clearly assert that, based on the studies I've read, testosterone level is not the defining factor in sporting performance.
When Semenya did take medication, she stated "It made me sick, made me gain weight, panic attacks, I don’t know if I was ever going to have a heart attack". I expect every athlete would perform badly under those conditions.

Testosterone defines your sex in the womb, and directs the development of your body during puberty. After that it's done... and yes, the biological male body can have some physical advantages over the female one, but the amount of testosterone in that body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance. It's only the governing factor in the IAAF regulations - They don't give a toss what an athlete's genetic sex is or what their physical body looks like.

Case in point:

Why do endocrine profiles in elite athletes differ between sports? - Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology

Background Endocrine profiles have been measured on blood samples obtained immediately post-competition from 693 elite athletes from 15 Olympic Sports competing at National or International level; four were subsequently excluded leaving 689 for the current analysis. Methods Body composition was...

clindiabetesendo.biomedcentral.com

These are all elite athletes. About a quarter of those male athletes have very low testosterone levels, below 10 nmol/L and some even below the 5nmol/L female threshold, yet are still considered elite Olympic level competitors.

I don't personally think trans "women" should be able to compete (your first example) but that doesn't affect whether or not intersex "women" competing is fair or not if in both cases they've been through male puberty.

In the former case, neither do I, as they have chosen to become the way they are.
In the latter case, concerning intersex, almost all of them have been told all their lives by medical professionals that they are female. For all intents and purposes, they are as natural as they day they were born. To then have someone else re-define that reality, again usually without their advance knowledge and under the guise of a "doping test", and then especially followed by the public disclosure of any findings, is ethically and morally 'unfair'... although utterly ******* disgusting is perhaps a more fitting term.

 

[C Kent]

Case in point:

Why do endocrine profiles in elite athletes differ between sports? - Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology

Background Endocrine profiles have been measured on blood samples obtained immediately post-competition from 693 elite athletes from 15 Olympic Sports competing at National or International level; four were subsequently excluded leaving 689 for the current analysis. Methods Body composition was...

clindiabetesendo.biomedcentral.com

These are all elite athletes. About a quarter of those male athletes have very low testosterone levels, below 10 nmol/L and some even below the 5nmol/L female threshold, yet are still considered elite Olympic level competitors.

What were the ages of the males that had lower levels of testosterone? Their ethnicity? Both of which impacts testosterone levels.

Additionally the standard of athletes (whilst being 'elite') that took part in the study range from a national standard to an international standard. There's a huge difference between elite athletes of a national standard and elite athletes of an international standard. As an example British national 100m champion in 2020 ran 10.35, World 100m champion in 2019 ran 9.76.

It's also worth pointing out that endurance based sports actually decrease testosterone levels.

 

[tom_e]

Post competition so when their bodies are going to have been absolutely hammered in the run up to competition, stress levels high and high output activity right before they test. All of which will tank test levels.

 

[ttaskmaster]

What were the ages of the males that had lower levels of testosterone? Their ethnicity? Both of which impacts testosterone levels.

Additionally the standard of athletes (whilst being 'elite') that took part in the study range from a national standard to an international standard. There's a huge difference between elite athletes of a national standard and elite athletes of an international standard. As an example British national 100m champion in 2020 ran 10.35, World 100m champion in 2019 ran 9.76.

It's also worth pointing out that endurance based sports actually decrease testosterone levels.

The full study is linked at the top of that page, where they go into details of the above, and that also includes some links to similar studies.

Ultimately though, you could be 7' tall, with massive bellows for lungs, and a 55" running pace, or have two dicks and three breasts... but none of it matters if the ONLY thing the regulations go by is testosterone level at the time of testing.

 

[C Kent]

The full study is linked at the top of that page, where they go into details of the above, and that also includes some links to similar studies.

I couldnt see that information there? Quite the opposite actually as the study allowed elements of self reporting (age/height/weight).

Ultimately though, you could be 7' tall, with massive bellows for lungs, and a 55" running pace, or have two dicks and three breasts... but none of it matters if the ONLY thing the regulations go by is testosterone level at the time of testing.

Its not the 'only' thing the regulations go by though?

 

[dowie]

And yet when I did exactly this, you stuck your oar in and got your presuming panties all in a twist, accusing me of attempting to obfuscate.

Where? Are you saying you're deliberately feigning confusion here re: references to gender vs biological sex because of some other perceived issue? Why not just reply to whatever it is you have issue with instead of getting hung up on something you do apparently understand?

The trans athletes have personally chosen to be the way they are and have deliberately been modified of their own volition. That's fine, it's their choice, it's up to them, and they're doing pretty well out of it.
By contrast, the intersex athletes are being forced to alter themselves from their natural state, presumably against their wishes, despite having lived their lives on the understanding that they were female. My issue is that this latter case is very wrong from an ethical and moral standpoint.

Nope, not necessarily, trans people don't have to suppress homrones in order to identify as trans, neither subset are forced to do anything, both subsets are required to lower their T levels if they wish to compete.

I don't "seem" anything - I quite clearly assert that, based on the studies I've read, testosterone level is not the defining factor in sporting performance.
When Semenya did take medication, she stated "It made me sick, made me gain weight, panic attacks, I don’t know if I was ever going to have a heart attack". I expect every athlete would perform badly under those conditions.

Yesh this is just cope, it quite clearly impacts performance which is both why the limits are required and why Caster is fighting against it.

Testosterone defines your sex in the womb, and directs the development of your body during puberty. After that it's done... and yes, the biological male body can have some physical advantages over the female one, but the amount of testosterone in that body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance.

Is anyone here arguing that it's the only factor? If you concede that it does present an advantage (which it obviously does) then can't you see why there is an issue with having biological males in the female event who are affected by it and who have gone through male puberty?

 

[dowie]

The full study is linked at the top of that page, where they go into details of the above, and that also includes some links to similar studies.

Ultimately though, you could be 7' tall, with massive bellows for lungs, and a 55" running pace, or have two dicks and three breasts... but none of it matters if the ONLY thing the regulations go by is testosterone level at the time of testing.

That isn't a good argument against having that regulation though, that other factors can also present an advantage doesn't negate that this does too.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I couldnt see that information there? Quite the opposite actually as the study allowed elements of self reporting (age/height/weight).

All of which can be independently verified after the fact as, presumably, Olympic athletes will have such stats recorded on their registration forms at their time of competing?

Its not the 'only' thing the regulations go by though?

It's the only thing that's been cited as the measure by which the athletes in question are regulated.... If you know more, please share and discuss.

Where? Are you saying you're deliberately feigning confusion here re: references to gender vs biological sex because of some other perceived issue?

No, the only one saying that here is you.

Why not just reply to whatever it is you have issue with instead of getting hung up on something you do apparently understand?

I did.
You took issue with that, got your presumed panties in a twist and went off on a tangent with it.

Nope, not necessarily, trans people don't have to suppress homrones in order to identify as trans, neither subset are forced to do anything, both subsets are required to lower their T levels if they wish to compete.

Trans people, no... trans athletes, yes, otherwise they're not trans athletes, they're just unemployed trans people.
The issue is with people not being allowed to compete exactly as they were born, and with others deciding their 'identity' for them in pretty harsh and insensitively public life-changing manners.

Yesh this is just cope, it quite clearly impacts performance which is both why the limits are required and why Caster is fighting against it.

As I've been asking all along and in the other thread - Where is the actual proof that testosterone levels impact peformance?

Is anyone here arguing that it's the only factor? If you concede that it does present an advantage (which it obviously does) then can't you see why there is an issue with having biological males in the female event who are affected by it and who have gone through male puberty?

I DO NOT concede any such thing, and don't try playing ******** games, here.
The amount of testosterone in the body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance, yet it is the only measure being used by which to judge individuals, based on flawed and contested science.

That isn't a good argument against having that regulation though, that other factors can also present an advantage doesn't negate that this does too.

What, that it's being challenged as flawed science by experts in the associated medical science fields?
It was a good enough reason to stop the regulations entirely during the first hearing, due to lack of supporting evidence, and only permitted in a much narrower and reduced capacity after the second hearing due to there being no better alternative.

Other factors aren't relevant to the regulations and few barely even get a mention in the case reports.

 

[C Kent]

All of which can be independently verified after the fact as, presumably, Olympic athletes will have such stats recorded on their registration forms at their time of competing?

They arent all 'Olympic' athletes? And the samples were taken in 2014 from what i can ascertain - the study you linked was based on these samples as noted in the study itself (bear in mind the samples were anonymous, they have no idea where the participants of the study had finished in their chosen event, nor could they rule out the possibility of doping)

Spoiler

Our main weakness is that this was a supplementary study to the main GH-2000 project using remaining serum aliquots and consequently not all variables were measured on all athletes, thus the data set is incomplete. We did not know where volunteer athletes finished in their events and so we cannot match hormone profile to performance. We cannot exclude the possibility that any athlete was ‘doping’ although we consider that the fact that they volunteered to participate in a research study and signed a consent form that specifically excluded anyone who was currently or had previously used performance enhancing drugs made this unlikely together with the fact that there were no suspicious results to suggest this as a possibility. As the blood samples were taken within two hours of completing their event, they could have been taken at any time of day and thus they represent a random sample and may not be a true representative of the daily secretion. Likewise, the degree of hydration was not standardised although athletes had access to water and other drinks. This obligatory timing of sampling of the athletes was mandated by the agreement with the sporting authorities. It also meant that the state of hydration of each athlete at the time of body composition measurement was not standardised. The wide ranges of body composition in the volunteers is also outside the ranges of normal where the machines have been validated; measures of body composition must therefore be understood as measurements taken ‘in the field’. Likewise, the estimated body composition data can only be considered approximate

Also given the date of the study, it's entirely possible the female athletes with abnormally high testosterone levels were intersex - I read somewhere (think it was in one of the studies referenced) that the number of intersex female athletes is abnormally high when compared to the 'normal' population.

Trans people, no... trans athletes, yes, otherwise they're not trans athletes, they're just unemployed trans people.
The issue is with people not being allowed to compete exactly as they were born, and with others deciding their 'identity' for them in pretty harsh and insensitively public life-changing manners.

There's a huge difference between someone that's trans and someone that's intersex is there not? Specifically, someone that falls under the 46 XY DSD category, pretty disingenuous to label them all under the same umbrella imo.

As I've been asking all along and in the other thread - Where is the actual proof that testosterone levels impact peformance?

It's in reference material of the study you linked:

Serum androgen levels and their relation to performance in track and field: mass spectrometry results from 2127 observations in male and female elite athletes | British Journal of Sports Medicine

Conclusion: Female athletes with high fT levels have a significant competitive advantage over those with low fT in 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw, and pole vault.

What, that it's being challenged as flawed science by experts in the associated medical science fields?
It was a good enough reason to stop the regulations entirely during the first hearing, due to lack of supporting evidence, and only permitted in a much narrower and reduced capacity after the second hearing due to there being no better alternative.

Other factors aren't relevant to the regulations and few barely even get a mention in the case reports.

The 1st hearing was in relation to the original Hyperandrogenism Regulations which were based upon the supposition that hormone testosterone was the primary cause for the increase in lean body mass in males at puberty and that this provided an athletic advantage to male athletes over female athletes.This was as you say thrown out by CAS as in their opinion there was insufficient evidence. It was then the IAAF changed tact and introduced the regulations around DSD, which included reducing testosterone levels of athletes identifying as women to 5nmol/L (from 10) which is still magnitudes higher than a 'normal' woman who come in under 2nmol/L.
You go on about 'flawed science' and yet the one study you've referenced is a continuation of the one from 2014 and is largely referencing endocrine hormone profiles of which testosterone is one small element.

 

[dowie]

You took issue with that, got your presumed panties in a twist and went off on a tangent with it.

There's no tangent here just directly addressing what you said:

She is genetically male and yet, in spite of this, most people, including you, still refer to her as a female.

You've conflated gender identity and sex/biology that's all. It's been explained to you several times now and you're apparently unable to grasp it. I think that problem perhaps explains your muddled thinking re: the issue in general.

The issue is with people not being allowed to compete exactly as they were born, and with others deciding their 'identity' for them in pretty harsh and insensitively public life-changing manners.
[...]
The amount of testosterone in the body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance, yet it is the only measure being used by which to judge individuals, based on flawed and contested science.

They are allowed to compete as they're born and no one is deciding their identity for them. They can freely compete in the men's event but if, as biological males, they want to compete in the women's event then they have obvious physical differences a major one being testosterone.

Are you unaware of things like doping where people use testosterone to seek an unfair advantage?

Do you think anyone should be able to compete in the women's event or do you think that there shouldn't even be separate men's and women's events since you're apparently in denial of testosterone having an impact here?