Though I do wish news magazines and the like would deprecate if not anathematize phrases like "female transgender athletes" as they're nothing of the sort. They're no more than male transvestites, at least if they still have their nuts, and sexless eunuchs if not.
But in some related news, you might also be interested in a story out of Oklahoma where the State has more or less fully endorsed the definitions for the sexes that you, along with Heather Heying and Colin Wright, had had published in the letter section of the UK Times:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Both, of course, making it unnecessary to actually be able to reproduce, to actually produce gametes, to qualify as members of the male and female sex categories. Those definitions may well have some social utility -- even they may be a rather problematic if not a "poisoned chalice" -- but they ain't biology. They do not at all comport with the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in more reputable sources -- the UK Times certainly qualifies as a decent newspaper, but it hardly qualifies as any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal. But, for some specifics, see these sources, including the tweet of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
If one assumes that DSDs such as 5-ARD, which confers significant advantage in athletics, are equally dispersed through the sports population, do you think
- someone with that sort of T advantage should have shown up by now
- or other factors are at work? It seems surprising that someone with such an advantage hasn’t shown up.
Kudos for your efforts. Seems to have had some quite positive effects -- probably instrumental in banning transwomen from women's cycling at least:
"Female transgender athletes banned from women’s events by world cycling’s governing body"
https://globalnews.ca/news/9833371/transgender-athletes-world-cycling-womens-races/
Though I do wish news magazines and the like would deprecate if not anathematize phrases like "female transgender athletes" as they're nothing of the sort. They're no more than male transvestites, at least if they still have their nuts, and sexless eunuchs if not.
But in some related news, you might also be interested in a story out of Oklahoma where the State has more or less fully endorsed the definitions for the sexes that you, along with Heather Heying and Colin Wright, had had published in the letter section of the UK Times:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Both, of course, making it unnecessary to actually be able to reproduce, to actually produce gametes, to qualify as members of the male and female sex categories. Those definitions may well have some social utility -- even they may be a rather problematic if not a "poisoned chalice" -- but they ain't biology. They do not at all comport with the standard biological definitions "promulgated" in more reputable sources -- the UK Times certainly qualifies as a decent newspaper, but it hardly qualifies as any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal. But, for some specifics, see these sources, including the tweet of the definitions in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see their Glossary)
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
If one assumes that DSDs such as 5-ARD, which confers significant advantage in athletics, are equally dispersed through the sports population, do you think
- someone with that sort of T advantage should have shown up by now
- or other factors are at work? It seems surprising that someone with such an advantage hasn’t shown up.