Yeah. The onus is now on you to start proving your claims.
You can start with proving that there are questions on the benefits of endogenous testosterone to physical performance.
The CAS already did that, and this was already hashed out with studies linked earlier in the thread.
In summary, it was found that:
- Both exogenous and endogenous testosterone provides
some advantage.
-
Exogenous provided a much higher advantage than endogenous.
- Both advantages/responses were vastly more pronounced in women than in men.
- Endogenous testosterone levels are cyclical and can vary greatly in all women.
"In order to justify excluding an individual from competing in a particular category on the basis of a naturally occurring characteristic such as endogenous testosterone, it is not enough simply to establish that the characteristic has some performance enhancing effect. Instead, the IAAF needs to establish that the characteristic in question confers
such a significant performance advantage over other members of the category that allowing individuals with that characteristic to compete would subvert the very basis for having the separate category and thereby prevent a level playing field.
The degree or magnitude of the advantage is therefore critical".
Different scientists have differing opinions, hence it's still in question.
The point remains that naturally ocurring endogenous testosterone is
not the same as doping exogenously, and the advantage (if any) is also not the same.
You can then move onto proving this point.
Again, evidenced by the subsequent CAS rulings to allow some individuals with high endogenous testosterone, while excluding others also with high endogenous testosterone, which was based on individual manifestations of conditions, whether they derived any advantage from it, and whether that advantage was significant enough to be unfair on fellow participants.
The topic was advantages and differences in performance between men and women.
But thanks for clearing up that you struggle to follow the context of the conversation.
You're projecting again. The topic was the
causes of the different performances between the sexes.
You merely posted a link to some numbers, which say nothing about the reasons behind them.
Its a pleasure to see you struggle. Reality is, unless we address everything in a single post every time anyone replies to you, by the time you read and respond you have completely forgotten the context of what was being discussed.
More projection. You ignore the context, which is why you get lost in your tangents. I merely respond to what you post.
That's what everyone else has been arguing in favour of FFS!
Glad you're finally starting to see some sense here.
I've never argued otherwise.
My point has always been that it must first be definitively proven, for which science has yet to come to a consensus, and that it should be done in the strictest confidentiality, rather than being thrown to the wolves of the Social Media Court. Unless it's with the express consent of teh individuals concerned, We The Public, should not be hearing a single word about who might have internal ******** and whose girly bits look a little bit pronounced.
The Algerian boxer shouldn't have been in the women's boxing, and Semenya shouldn't have been running against women (and neither should the other 800m finalists in that event).
Again, prove it with robust and unbiassed science before making the call, and do it in private.
There's a reasonable argument for a Paralympic event as the male advantage can be partial, but those biological males with male advantage (such as males who are trans women and males with DSDs such as 5-ARD) clearly shouldn't be competing with females.
Bio-males go in the bio-male category.
As you yourself have pointed out, there are many men in Kent running clubs with higher testosterone who couldn't compete with the DSDers, and many men with much lower testosterone who still achieve Olympic level performances. Neither of these need to be in the Paralympics, so neither do DSD males with male-level advantages.
