-
even without hormone therapies or "physiologically altering procedures" I wouldn't be classified as a "woman" despite being told I was at birth. It's actually incredibly common for a lot of women, including those with PCOS, thyroid problems, diabetes, to name a few. On top of that, women of colour typically have a higher average than white women across the board, hence why legislation like this will also have a knock-on effect to exclude women of colour.
I agree, testosterone level is a ridiculous yardstick to determine whether someone is a woman, for all the reasons you flag and more.
Female people are not males with low testosterone. We are complete humans in our own right, and we continue to be female even if we happen to have higher than usual testosterone for our sex.
However now society has decided women can include male people, it has to either give up on the idea of women-only sport categories or ensure the yardstick for being a woman be achieved by males. So, testosterone it is. Not to benefit female people but to accommodate male.
(Incidentally, one reason there's not been many trans women olympians is because until 2015 trans women competing in women's categories had to have fully surgically transitioned, which is pretty rare still. The testosterone level wasn't introduced to keep trans women out of women's sports but to allow more in).
brokenbetty-
Not to benefit female people but to accommodate male.
There’s some paper done (notably the previously mentioned Joanna Harper) who come to the conclusion that “In transwomen, hormone therapy rapidly reduces Hgb to levels seen in cisgender women.”
It’s a little bit belittling to said trans women are “male”, moreso, we have very little talk of trans men in racing.
The biggest issues I think in cycling as other have mentioned is BC not doing much to domestic cycling, and moreso in women’s cycling that the ideas of accommodating “male” is the singular biggest threat to it.
edscoble
Ah I see, rather than me exposing my genitals, they'd rather look at a data sheet so they can mentally picture it instead. I'm calling a spade a spade here, it's still creepy as hell.
Wasn't complaining about the lack of categories including non-binary people! We're all aware anyway that when we speak of "gendered" categories, they're referring to what sex you align to anyway.
It sucks, but it's something that's really water off a ducks back to me at this point. What does irk me, is that I don't get a say in what sex they're going to align me with.
Akin to being told the disabled toilet was the "lesbian changing room", forcing women to participate in an open category when the only other category is womens is still forcing exclusion. It's basically saying "shed your identity at the door if you want to compete."
Don't know what I missed off earlier, but even without hormone therapies or "physiologically altering procedures" I wouldn't be classified as a "woman" despite being told I was at birth. It's actually incredibly common for a lot of women, including those with PCOS, thyroid problems, diabetes, to name a few. On top of that, women of colour typically have a higher average than white women across the board, hence why legislation like this will also have a knock-on effect to exclude women of colour. Category Woman was a great documentary recently released about this.
If sport isn't 'for fun' then what is it? Eugenics? Proof of physiological betterment? I'd much rather go to the sound races, enjoyed having some beers at Fixed Crit and watching my mates skid round the track. Maybe I'll take up that, but the latter I won't be participating in, regardless of if it did appeal.