Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,375
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 not address it? She's a biological male after all.
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.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?
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.
I'm discussing testosterone and a regulation based on it.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?
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?
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.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?
And yet the current regulations do allow some genetic males to compete in womens' sports...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.
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.