2019年11月/ 10月≪ 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930≫12月



@AdCuius So now I can't trust the reg to be scientifically sound.For 2. harm reduction and 3. stay out of sex or gender, I would reply later.side note: Ovotesticular DSD, 1 of 4 specific conditions covered, comes in various karyotypes include 46,XX. So XX females might not be 100% safe.
11-29 05:12

@AdCuius 1-4. The research I'm referring to, which were funded by IAAF, might ignored the standard ethics code for medical research. The data were initially collected for doping control and are sensitive informations, so they might had to obtain participants' consent for diversion.
11-29 04:51

@AdCuius 1-3. The disciplines showed positive correlation between testosterone level and performance, aren't same with disciplines currently under restriction. CAS asked not to apply the reg for disciplines with no evidences of advantage, until it can establish one. But IAAF refused.
11-29 04:39

@AdCuius Apparently their conclusion was, elevated testosterone level confers performance advantage to women, regardless of their karyotypes. So there is no good reason to only target hyperandrogenic XY females. Dropping hyperandrogenism in XX females from regulation doesn't make sense.
11-29 04:25

@AdCuius 1-2. That research does not tell whether XY females enjoy the advantage hyperandrogenism gives them, differently from XX females do, or not. Because most participants were perisex, and the researchers carved out all the data from intersex/DSD participants while data collection.
11-29 04:12

@AdCuius As for 1. science; 1-1. The reg is established based on a research, witch showed performance improvement in female athletes with elevated testosterone level in certain disciplines. And its date were severely flawed. https://t.co/V6i5NLOUo7
11-29 04:01


【編集】 |  04:18 |  ファイル倉庫  | TB(0)  | CM(0) | Top↑



@AdCuius @EDM17503975 @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi 2. minimize the harm done to affected women, since they did nothing wrong. 3. Stay away from classificating people's sex and/or gender, since that isn't its business. We can agree with these, can't we?
11-28 20:05

@AdCuius @EDM17503975 @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi A policy shouldn't be judged sorely on its "good intention". We should look into whether the the practice dose keep up to its proposed intention. As a sporting body to implement this type regulation, it should:1. Choose what and whom to regulate scientifically.
11-28 20:04

@AdCuius @EDM17503975 @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi That's because I was making a loooong argument, and being disrupted soon after I started. Sorry for that. I will try to make it shorter.
11-28 18:50

【編集】 |  04:39 |  ファイル倉庫  | TB(0)  | CM(0) | Top↑



@AdCuius @EDM17503975 @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi "one trait that drives the sex difference in sport performance" i.e. testosterone level. And even then it wasn't consistent enough, because the cut off point was established more on sparing hyperandrogenic "healthy females" than on actual difference in performance.
11-27 19:17

@AdCuius @EDM17503975 @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi IAAF did tried not to focus on sex or gender, at least to some extent, when it wrote its regulation. It does emphasize the need to respect affected athletes' identity and privacy. However, not as much as the previous 2011 version which tried to restrict sorely on
11-27 19:12

【編集】 |  04:18 |  ファイル倉庫  | TB(0)  | CM(0) | Top↑



@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi Unfortunately, IAAF itself seems to have no problem with this contradiction in terms.🤦https://t.co/CULo2byOQV
11-26 23:44

@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi And I didn't even mention to the changes occurred outside of medicine/biology yet, like depathologization/bodily autonomy movement by intersex adovocates. Long in short, you cannot call certain women with intersex/DSD "biological males" while defending "DSD" regulation by IAAF.
11-26 23:07

@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi Like, people with CAIS are female, yet they used to fell under "male pseudo-hermaphrodite" category. Now with "DSD" classification, they stopped using single facter to decide "biological sex". Current definitions are far more nuanced.
11-26 22:50

@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi Also, there are reasons why they abolished gonadal-based classifications like "male pseudo-hermaphrodite", "female pseudo-hermaphrodite" and "true hermaphrodite". Besides being offensive and misleading, it really wasn't a good way to determine one's sex, let alone gender.
11-26 22:21

@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi You said "She is a FEMALE". Yes, she is. Then, as you know, women with ovotesticular DSD are restricted in international mid-d running due to current IAAF regulation. Do you still argue that it only affects "biological males", when yourself admitted this patient to be female?
11-26 21:48

@EDM17503975 @AdCuius @Woodywing @DeNovoNovelty @NeutralZoo @chiguisi She doesn't have complete gonadal dysgenesis / Swyer Syndrome. What she has is, in current medical terminology, ovotesticular DSD. This article is an old one, so it used the term "true hermaphrodite" instead. Which now likely to be considered as a slur in intersex/DSD community.
11-26 21:37

【編集】 |  04:21 |  ファイル倉庫  | TB(0)  | CM(0) | Top↑
 | HOME |