FC2ブログ
2020年07月/ 06月≪ 12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031≫08月
2019年08月27日(火)

08/26のツイートまとめ 

silly_fish

以下の一連のツイートを読んで、大いに言いたいことのあるあなたへ。I don't speak English><
08-26 23:28

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch You may wonder then, why it complained "All affected athletes are XY without ovaries" thing, at least before CAS ruling? Well, it's simple. To trick simple people like you into its support. It deceived you. Now stop misleading people and YOURSELF.
08-26 22:47

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch Also, did you notice that IAAF says "Biological sex is an umbrella term that includes distinct aspects of chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal and phenotypic sex" (current version P.1)? Clearly it knows that "biological sex" is complicated, more so than a simple XX v.s. XY thing.
08-26 22:38

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch There, he described that "vast majority" of athletes who are affected by the regulation are XY, and have no ovaries - instead of "all". He knows what he is doing.
08-26 22:30

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch Well, I'm not sure exactly how many women with ovaries - or ovotests - are currently affected, since ovotesticuler DSD is rare. But that does not eliminate the theoretical possibility to be banned. IAAF knows it. I've read an interview with Bermon issued after CAS ruling.
08-26 22:19

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch That (D) & (E) came from the 2018 version. You can read it here→https://t.co/bxx9MiWwi8 Which was scheduled to come in force on 2018.11.1, and postponed only after being sued. So it's clear that even more XX women would be banned if there wasn't Semenya's brave action.
08-26 22:11

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch Collection: Not (F)ovotesticular DSD, it's actually (D)ovotesticular DSD now. IAAF removed (D)congenital adrenal hyperplasia and (E)3β‐hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency (a specific form of D), so the alphabet changed. Still targets women with ovarian tissue, and likely XX.
08-26 21:55

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch Related conditions without ovarian tissue lead different diagnosis such as XX testiculer DSD (formally known as "XX males") and unlikely to be raised as girls, thus have nothing to do with DSD regulation.
08-26 21:47

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch It does. https://t.co/cvw02qhcbL This is current regulation, and it targets women with (F)ovotesticular DSD. See P.3. As I said before, people with this diagnosis HAVE ovarian tissue. How a condition named in the regulation not being banned?
08-26 21:45

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch Needless to say the original 2018 version also targeted women with CAH. 46,XX with two ovaries, no tests. It only changed after been challenged by Semenya. It was IAAF that tried to ban biological females (in your definition). It was Caster Semenya who saved them.
08-26 21:19


【More・・・】

@EDM17503975 @RogerPielkeJr @RetractionWatch This is simply untrue. Didn't you see IAAF specifically listed ovotesticular DSD in its regulation? You won't get this diagnosis unless you have ovarian tissue. Also, while karyotype varies among those people, most commonly seen is 46,XX.
08-26 21:09

RT @RogerPielkeJr: THREADThe "massive correction" of Clark et al. on testosterone ranges has now been published. The authors have introduc…
08-26 20:31

スポンサーサイト



【編集】 |  05:36 |  ファイル倉庫  | TB(0)  | CM(0) | Top↑

Comment

コメントを投稿する

URL
コメント
パス  編集・削除するのに必要
非公開  管理者だけにコメントを表示
 

トラックバック

この記事のトラックバックURL

この記事へのトラックバック

 | HOME |