Hold up, have I been watching the wrong Olympics? I don't remember anyone having to get their wang out and use it for performing the obvious!?If someone's arm doesn't develop you'd call that disabled right? But if someone's ball sack doesn't fully develop and their penis doesn't grow that's not a disability even though it limits them from performing the obvious?
Just as you can be female and masculine, though it seems you'd like to think those are mutually exclusive...You're again missing the point - those things aren't mutually exclusive - you can be male and masculine.
Maybe that's because something else was said. Indeed, you're banging on about specific cases in respose to a point where I said I was deliberately not speaking about any one particular case.The point re: masculine was made in reference to you trying to do a bit of handwaving re: other XY conditions and that point was to highlight that those clearly weren't applicable here, that still seems to have gone over your head as you keep on replying to it without showing any understanding of that and just responding as if something else has been said.
This is what happens when you base your argument on flawed premises and personal assumptions....If someone's arm doesn't develop you'd call that disabled right? But if someone's ball sack doesn't fully develop and their penis doesn't grow that's not a disability even though it limits them from performing the obvious?
The I expect you'll be adding ginger people to the same list, on that rather shaky subjective basis....Just because DSD have been kept very private historically or is viewed a certain way doesn't negate that it could just as easily be seen as a disability.
They'd take one look at DSD applications, stamp them as unimpacted by their condition, and then throw them back at the regular Olympics.More to the point though the Paralympics is the place for categories to be segregated based on disabilities or medical conditions and it would be an obvious solution to this issue.
Hold up, have I been watching the wrong Olympics? I don't remember anyone having to get their wang out and use it for performing the obvious!?
Just as you can be female and masculine, though it seems you'd like to think those are mutually exclusive...
Maybe that's because something else was said. Indeed, you're banging on about specific cases in respose to a point where I said I was deliberately not speaking about any one particular case.
They'd take one look at DSD applications, stamp them as unimpacted by their condition, and then throw them back at the regular Olympics.
That is the very point of the Paralympics, though.So what - a disability doens't need relate to how well you perform at the Olympics.
Only if the condition limits their ability to compete against their peers.Point is if there is to be an event for people with that medical condition then the Paralympics could hold it just as they do for other medical conditions.
It's what you're not saying that makes it obvious.Now you're just making up positions for me - no one said you can't, it's just not relevant here.
The point I've been addressing concerns athletes with genetic differences in general, and more specifically about where the lines should be drawn.OK, but the point you were replying to was about a specific case - the Algerian boxer. The point here is that the boxer is male with a DSD condition.
OK, explain your brainworkings behind that idea.....You realise you've just contradicted your whole argument now?
Yes, the nature of which is what is/will be studied and measured to determine for the DSD contingent.You do in fact understand that males have an athletic advantage over females right?
Unimpacted, as in completely unimpaired and thus inelligible for Paralympic inclusion.If your position is that DSD males are unimpacted by their condition then what is the argument for them not competing as males?
what are you saying here? that a biological male has given birth?It has happened. About 20 recorded times, I believe, with likely more in undiscovered cases - It's not exactly misinformation if something can and has actually happened, and arguably not that rare given the comparatively low numbers of DSD people.
I'm saying that despite XY Chromo being hailed as definitively male, some have fully functioning female internals and there are 15-20 documented incidents of them giving birth, one of whom also had a mother with the exact same condition.what are you saying here? that a biological male has given birth?
I disagree that any of those would be considered biologically male - the lack of gene expression that results in testes makes them female.I'm saying that despite XY Chromo being hailed as definitively male, some have fully functioning female internals and there are 15-20 documented incidents of them giving birth, one of whom also had a mother with the exact same condition.
So in essence, yes, 'males' have given birth. Others with Swyer syndrome, a very similar XY condition, have also given birth but only after medical intervention with hormone therapy.
Shocking men can easily trample over women when it comes to fighting.Funny coincidence that both the "look like men but are women" boxers won Gold....
I agree with your disagreement, though many won't... same as the likes of Chand, who very clearly have internal testicles and so are considered even more 'male', despite them affording no benefit or advantage and the idiot IOC allowing her to compete as female as a result.I disagree that any of those would be considered biologically male - the lack of gene expression that results in testes makes them female.
I agree that XY is not enough to say 'male' - if the male genes are not actively expressed it results in a biological female, albeit one with a syndrome of some type.
The point I've been addressing concerns athletes with genetic differences in general, and more specifically about where the lines should be drawn.
Your witter about "male with a DSD condition" is one case and, as with all the others, without sufficient scientific data to confidently draw any lines at this stage.
I disagree that any of those would be considered biologically male - the lack of gene expression that results in testes makes them female.
I agree that XY is not enough to say 'male' - if the male genes are not actively expressed it results in a biological female, albeit one with a syndrome of some type.