38

83 comments

[–] SakuraBlossoms 78 points Edited

People with DSDs can be looked at on a case-by-case basis, but Lia Thomas has no DSD and is 100% male.

thank you for saying that. I use that comment with my teen nieces who want to be allies.

[–] ProxyMusic 2 points Edited

I just want to clarify that as a matter of policy and law, it's possible to look at people with DSDs on a case-by-case basis, but it's not possible to decide their inclusion or exclusion on a case-by-case basis.

Also, the bone of contention in women's sports isn't about whether "people with DSDs" should be included - it's about whether XY people with a handful of DSDs that only occur in males should be participating and competing in women's sports. The athletes whose place in women's sports are contested are solely those who have certain disorders of male sex development or DMSDs.

I think it's high time women start stating what's at hand here very clearly: There is no controversy about whether athletes with disorders of female sex development should participate in women's sports. Everyone agrees they should. The only debate is over whether XY athletes with disorders of male sex development like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Christine Mboma should compete in the sports category established and meant for female people.

There have to be blanket rules that apply to all people with DMSDs in women's sports like the ones I just named who all have the following set of physical characteristics: male sex chromosomes and the SRY gene; functioning male gonads (testes, not ovaries); levels of testosterone within or exceeding the normal range for healthy males their same age; and male-typical sensitivity to the testosterone the testes make. Those are the characteristics that athletes have to possess in order to come under World Athletics' current DSD regulations governing eligibility for women's track & field competition.

Yes, each athlete seeking eligibility for women's sports who is suspected of having a DMSD needs to be looked at and medically assessed on a case-by-case basis. But once it has been ascertained that an athlete has a DMSD and has all the characteristics I named above, then the same rules have to be applied to one as to all the others with the same or similar conditions.

It's not fair to say these XY athletes with 5-ARD or PAIS are allowed in, but those other ones with the same conditions are not.

It's also not practical or feasible to decide which athletes with DMSDs are let into women's sports on a case-by-case basis. On the contrary, deciding each case individually would put sports officials under terrible pressure; make them and their loved ones sitting ducks for intimidation, threats, bribery, blackmail, smearing, accusations of bias and bigotry, and "persuasion" through various other strong-arm tactics; and would result in officials and sports governing bodies having to spend inordinate amounts of time and money in court fighting lawsuits - and defending themselves against complaints of prejudice and unfair play in the court of public opinion.

TL;DR Lia Thomas does not in fact make anything approaching a good point.

‘Who’s to say what makes a woman?’ I dunno, maybe four billion years of evolution which was only possible by means of sexual reproduction entirely predicated on a male/female binary which in humans is called man or woman. If overlapping characteristics are considered the basis of taxonomy then it is quite easy to argue that chimps should be considered as humans seeing as we share 98.8 per cent of our DNA.

Thomas makes a good point at the absurdity of what the left considers a woman nowadays.

Here’s hoping people are smart and brave enough to admit the emperor has no clothes… one day.

Anisogamy probably evolved somewhere between one and two billion years ago, but certainly you need to go veeeeeeery far back in the evolutionary history of humans before you find an asexual ancestor.

[–] GCRadFem 47 points

Such horseshit! Particularly this:

While being transgender isn’t currently classified as a disorder of sexual development, many endocrinologists and biologists who work and research in the fields of sex, gender, and genetics believe that gender identity is at least partially — and possibly wholly — biological, and

studies seem to show that trans women lag behind cis men in physical strength and body mass even before undertaking hormone therapy.

What flipping studies?

If this is the case, and Lia Thomas was never truly or fully male to begin with, then we must admit that she’s just one more victim of a harmful system that could force any accomplished female athlete to lose her identity, hard-earned medals, and even part of her clitoris, based on measures of sex that seem increasingly arbitrary. And when we allow this to happen to any woman, all women lose.

Fiction as fact, all day. Good grief!!

it's fucking nuts that they're claiming women are just weaker men. and now weak men can ID as a woman and bam, instant acceptance bc oh, he couldn't beat the boys! he must be female!!

I feel sick

even part of her clitoris

Who knew that not allowing men in women's sports leads to female athletes losing parts of their clitoris.

studies seem to show that trans women lag behind cis men in physical strength and body mass even before undertaking hormone therapy.

WTF? How then do they explain Bruce Caitlyn Jenner winning the Olympic decathlon? Somebody better tell Wheaties.

https://youtu.be/pj6S1tmSVmc

https://youtu.be/S4xfm5Fg16A

https://youtu.be/H4GMUpQcf_s

How the hell do these numbnuts explain the physical strength and body mass of Janea Marie Kroc?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZufCF1PAsL/?hl=en

https://www.instagram.com/p/CU97_XnA0Nm/?hl=en

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDZKCMog1GD/?hl=en

Lol, thank you. My mind immediately went to Jenner too.

Also it's incredibly horseshit, like "transwomen are naturally weaker than other males because of their women brains". Like what?

[–] Snowy 19 points Edited

I'm inclined to believe that on average they probably are weaker, with the obvious exceptions.

The explanation is a different matter, though. It cannot possibly be that spending all your waking hours sitting on your butt in front of a screen somehow doesn't grow your muscles much. Nono. It's because you're a woman. Clearly.

Well…I’ll bet their wank hand is stronger than average 😂

(Sorry. I’m immature and couldn’t resist)

Excessive pornography viewing is almost a guarantee among TIMs while at least some regular men do not partake, so I'm sure the average physical ability of TIMs overall is somewhat lower.

[–] ProxyMusic 12 points Edited

Don't be a mug! There is no reason whatsoever to believe these guys are any weaker on average in any way than other males of similar age, height, lifestyles and personal habits.

Being a TIM is not a sign of having any kind of physical disability. To believe the BS this person is claiming makes a mockery of the struggles and obstacles of people who do have conditions that cause them to be genuinely weaker than others.

Or it could be that these “naturally weaker” men see an opportunity to win or go further in women’s sports than in men’s, and instead of just trying harder (like women are told to do), they convince themselves that they must have “lady brains.” Or at least convince others that they are poor, desperate souls who need the validation of participating in women’s sports to “live their best lives.”

gender identity is at least partially — and possibly wholly — biological

LOL WHAT? I thought gender was a social construct? Now the social norms of gender are wholly biological? So if all the women who have an education were born into one of the many societies in the present or past that feel it isn't a woman's role to be allowed to learn--they'd have the gender identity of man biologically inside of them? And their gender identity is biologically woman now just because they were lucky enough to happen to be born in a place and time that doesn't have access to education as part of their social constructs of gender?

And what happened to "A woman is anyone who identifies as one"? That's not biological. I can literally say "I identify as a woman solely because I like wearing dresses" and that's valid according to trans theory, since regardless of my reason I'm identifying as a woman. But nope, apparently genderfluid demigirls have that in their genetics.

There have been a few studies that show a link between transgenderism and insufficient hormone surges in utero and in early infancy. If that were the case, there could be a biological cause for some transgender individuals. At the same time, this could possibly be fixed by making sure a newborn’s hormone levels are correct at birth.

While I’m aware of these studies and think they have merit, they don’t explain all transgender people, only a small subset. They wouldn’t necessarily have a DSD. Think of it more like the way there are hypotheses that using Tylenol while pregnant increases the risk of ADHD.

It’s my understanding that there are ongoing longitudinal studies tracking some of these things and maybe we’ll find out if any of it is true with a control group. Right now, they’re looking back at the bodies of adults who are trans identified.

The reality is that almost everything they say is bullshit and then there are a couple of interesting points sprinkled in that could use further thought or study. This is one of them. It would be a non-invasive observational study so imo it’s a good idea to check.

[–] ProxyMusic 5 points Edited

There have been a few studies that show a link between transgenderism and insufficient hormone surges in utero and in early infancy.

t’s my understanding that there are ongoing longitudinal studies tracking some of these things

Please provide links to the studies you are referring to - the studies you say have already been done, and the ones you say are now ongoing.

I don't believe any studies have been done that "show a link between transgenderism and insufficient hormone surges in utero and in early infancy," but I am very interested in the topic - and willing to be proven wrong. I have looked for the kinds of studies you speak of, but have not been able to find them. Which piques my interest further, as I am generally pretty good when it comes to finding and reading research.

Please also fill me in: How exactly were researchers able to determine that people who are transgender today experienced "insufficient hormone surges in utero and in early infancy"?

I was under the impression that research done on humans in utero was unethical and frowned on, so I am curious as to how the researchers got approval for these studies, how they actually did them, and how they got pregnant women to participate.

What bodily substances - tissues, fluids, cells - did the researchers extract from the human fetuses in utero to determine their hormone levels? By what means precisely did the researchers obtain these samples? How often did the researchers obtain samples from the fetuses in order to measure their hormones in utero? How did the researchers get the samples without putting the fetuses' lives at risk?

As regards early infancy, exactly when in early infancy did the insufficient hormone surges occur? For how long? Which particular hormones were deemed insufficient?

What were the sex of the fetuses and babies in these studies?

this could possibly be fixed by making sure a newborn’s hormone levels are correct at birth.

WTF? What do you mean "at birth" here? Right at birth, or 10 hours later, or 24 or 48? What is the exact moment in time following birth that you think newborns' hormones should be measured to see if they are "correct"? What medical interventions do you think fetuses and neonates should be subjected to in order to meet the stated aim of "making sure a newborn's hormone levels are correct at birth"?

If hormones that are "not correct" at birth do not put a child's life or health at risk, or impair functionality of vital organs, how on earth can you justify subjecting fetuses or neonates to medical interventions to "make sure their hormone levels are correct at birth"?

The claims that transgenderism is caused by "insufficient hormone surges in utero and in early infancy" and that some babies have hormones that are not "correct at birth" are just other ways of stating the view some people are "born in the wrong body."

I wouldn't be surprised if as a mental disorder, gender dysphoria has some specific cause like other mental disorders are thought to. I'd hesitate to call people with gender dysphoria "transgender" though, since a man or woman with a mental disorder is still just a man or woman. A person suffering from body integrity dysphoria who thinks their body is meant to be deaf can still hear.

The trans movement really shoots itself in the foot with the attempt for a biological explanation since they adamantly argue that "You don't need gender dysphoria to be trans," i.e. you don't even need the potentially biological-in-part mental disorder. Apparently they're a bigoted transmedicalist or "TruScum" if they say you actually have to have the mental disorder to call yourself trans, as that "gatekeeps" people from doing it for other reasons like fetish. So it's ironic since they're openly against the efforts for their condition to be looked at as a mental disorder and researched and treated as such--they will immediately call you a bigot and transphobe if you suggest gender dysphoria is a mental disorder--and yet when they are losing an argument they try to appeal to science that wouldn't fit their "anyone who thinks they feel like the other gender regardless of presence of gender dysphoria is trans" narrative at all. I've had to link TRAs to the gender dysphoria page in the DSM-V countless times since they always deny it's a mental disorder.

Another thing of note is that with mental disorders that are social in origin like eating disorders, there are studies suggesting there are neurological problems that pave the way for them like abnormal blood flow in the limbic system. For instance this and this are some of many I saw. Had those people not been exposed to a society that placed enormous pressure on girls and women to be very thin, they would have never gotten eating disorders despite the neurological issues they had. I can't help but think this is the case with gender dysphoria considering the huge boom of it since the myth was popularized that there is such thing as feeling like a girl or boy. The new wave of people getting gender dysphoria far more often than the rare "transsexual" of old probably had some sort of imbalance (for instance one resulting from insufficient hormone surges like you mention) or another mental disorder beforehand, which caused them to be very vulnerable to the recent social contagion of transgenderism. I'm of course talking about real cases of gender dysphoria, not just "I'm going to transition because I hate doing 'girly' stuff which means I'm a boy inside," although this kind of thinking people learn from gender ideology does lead to real cases.

TRAs keep on changing their mind arguments and pretending they're being coherent. They hope no one will notice that they say "there is a difference between sex and gender, no one is claiming sex doesn't exist" and then right after they argue "sex is a spectrum" and then again "transwomen are biologically female"

While both are patently wrong as shit, The biology standpoint is at least just scientifically wrong, Where as the "Womanhood, the thing you fought and died for, for thousands of years, is just a silly button I like to wear when I'm feeling it. Let me into your spaces."

They're nothing if not consistently contradictory of their own beliefs 🤣🤣

Wow so many outright lies. The military/body builder/steroid jacked up dudebro to trans pipeline would contradict the "they're so weak compared to other scrotes" line you highlighted.

[–] GCRadFem 9 points

The cheerleading squad for males to compete in women’s sports is endless. If there are no facts to support their essays, they simply make things up, pronounce them as fact and the cheerleaders, handmaidens and genuflecting masses eat it up with a spoon.

[–] DoomedSibyl 9 points Edited

HTF is Liar Thomas not fully male? Or ‘lagging behind’ other males? In a comment section some months ago about Thomas, one commenter noted that Thomas had not only male shoulders but that they were linebacker quality shoulders.

For whatever reason Thomas was not a top tier swimmer with the men. That doesn’t mean he gets a second chance in the women’s division. Worst of all, the ideas he’s promulgating are dangerous and in line with the idea that women like oppression and can’t handle higher education and are too delicate for sports because of our gendered nature. Which is biologically determined with sex except for specials who want to escape the stereotypes. Like himself. Grrr.

[–] GCRadFem 9 points

Mr. Thomas is 100% male. Always was, always will be.

He was a mediocre man swimming in the men’s division. Now, as the male that he is, he finally became #1. In the women’s.

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 7 points

He’s a cheat who should be banned from all competition, tiddlywinks and Scrabble included.

Load more (6 comments)

Opinion piece by a TIF. Maybe we should coordinate and bombard every media outlet with GC 'articles'. They could even include actual, provable facts and legitimate statistics. Some might see the light of day (if we use a 'male' or 'queer 'byline.)

Depressing if we are going back that far that we need male pen names to be take seriously, but I think you’re right.

He said "woman" is a concept in a man's head. A formless void that floats around until someone cares to claim it. I fucking h**te him.

This has to be one of the worst articles I've read - full of magical thinking, lies and late-night at the bar w/ your drunk uncle science.

I am stealing "late-night at the bar w/ your drunk uncle science."

This comment should be a sticky.

How many people do you think read this article and nodded along with it sagely? @Eava made a comment on another thread recently pointing out we never see mainstream media articles with proper, scientifically informed journalism (not op-ed) on issues around transgenderism and/or intersex conditions, how the human body works (male vs female). Basic stuff about sex differences and hormones and intersex conditions. As a result the general population is woefully ill-informed and likely to believe all the stupid stuff in articles like this without question.

very true. MSM is terrified to send their science journalists to cover this.

Hate to say it but in the US most people probably couldn’t finish reading or understand a scientific article even at the layperson level. Education in this country is in an abysmal state.

[–] Eava 19 points

So much of this is wrong. 1) if she doesn't have XY chromosomes she would not be prevented from competing as a woman, if her claims about her testosterone levels are even true, which I highly doubt.

She hides the fact that the "internal gonads" being removed are undescended testicles, and Santhi Soundarajan has androgen insensitivity syndrome but not CAIS because CAIS athletes are allowed to compete as women, and have been since the early 90s.

This makes clear that the trans movement's ultimate goal is the destruction of human biology.

Unlike her critics, transgender swimmer Lia Thomas has been largely silent since placing first in the 500-meter freestyle at the NCAA women’s swimming championship in March. Earlier this week, though, she sat down with Good Morning America’s Juju Chang to give her side of the story. Describing a childhood spent feeling bewildered and depressed by a body that betrayed her, Lia told a story that is similar to those of many trans people — including my own. Lia discussed how swimming helped her cope, and how the fear of losing her ability to compete led her to put off medically transitioning until her sophomore year at UPenn.

Asked by Chang whether the contested possibility that a testosterone-fueled puberty may leave “legacy effects” on a trans woman’s body after medical transition that should disqualify her from competing in elite sports, Lia answered, “I’m not a medical expert, but there is a lot of variation among cis female athletes. There’s cis women who are very tall and very muscular and have more testosterone than another cis woman, and should that then also disqualify them?”

And herein lies the heart of the issue: What makes a woman, and who gets to decide that? Is it chromosomes? Hormones? Genitalia? The ability to become pregnant?

Many of those who would like to see Lia lose her championship title argue that Title IX policies were meant to protect women and girls in collegiate sports. They ignore the fact that Title IX protects all students from discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Implying that trans women aren’t “real” women, they weaponize transphobia and widespread misunderstandings about sex and gender to justify draconian and discriminatory policies. And, as the dark history of sex-testing in women’s sports shows, this is a real concern. These policies not only encourage women to view one another with unnecessary suspicion but pander to harmful and outdated ideas about what femininity should look like.

Take Ewa Klobukowska, Polish track star and the first to fail the International Association of Athletics Federation’s (the governing body now known as World Athletics) chromosome test. Three years after Ewa won gold and bronze medals in the 1964 Tokyo Olympic Games, the IAAF ruled that an extra chromosome disqualified her from competing as a female, publicly shaming her as a “male imposter” and stripping her of both medals and dignity. The next year, Ewa got pregnant and gave birth to a son. A medical journal later published the results of the test that upended her life — XX/XXY — one outcome of a condition called mosaicism that occurs when a person has two or more genetically different sets of chromosomes. Ewa, now 76, completely removed herself from the public eye after a failed suicide attempt. The IAAF has never formally apologized or restored her medals.

Forty years later, the IAAF would administer another chromosome test to Santhi Soundarajan, a young Indian woman from the “untouchable” caste who had seen track and field success. Slated to represent her country at the upcoming Olympics after winning a silver medal at the 2006 Asian Games, her joy was upended when she was sent home, bewildered, the very next day. Initially told she had failed a routine doping test, Santhi learned several days later — via national news — that she had actually failed a “sex test.” Born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, Santhi has XY chromosomes, female genitalia, and internal testes that produce testosterone, but her body lacks the androgen receptors that would allow it to use any of that hormone. Even if she shows levels in the typically male range, therefore, it expresses no physical effect on her body.

More recently, 18-year-old lesbian Dutee Chand was subjected to a series of tests after winning two gold medals at the 2014 Asian Junior Athletics Championships. Several athletes, she would later be told, thought she didn’t appear feminine enough, so suspected she might be male. IAAF doctors tested her testosterone levels and gave her an ultrasound, chromosome analysis, MRI, and physical examination that included “measuring and palpating the clitoris, vagina and labia, as well as evaluating breast size and pubic hair.” The IAAF officially replaced chromosome testing with testosterone testing in 2011 after another lesbian runner, Caster Semenya, was found to have naturally high levels, a move that would later inform the NCAA’s own policy on transgender athletes. Dutee was later told that she had “hyperandrogenism,” and would be disqualified from further competition unless she wanted to undergo unnecessary medical treatments to lower her levels.

In a 2013 issue of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, a group of French researchers record the IAAF-recommended “treatments” performed on four female athletes who, like Dutee Chand, were diagnosed with hyperandrogenism. Any internal gonads were removed, estrogen replacement therapy (like that undergone by Lia Thomas) began, and female genital mutation — including clitoridectomy for size reduction and “feminizing vaginoplasty” for labial fusion — was performed, even though none of these conditions pose any health risk to women and the interventions themselves can cause a multitude of issues.

Assigned female at birth, I lived more or less unsuccessfully as a woman for nearly 30 years before making the decision to transition. When I finally found the doctor that would prescribe my first rounds of hormone replacement therapy, she asked how long I’d been “self-medicating,” insinuating that I’d been doping myself with anabolic steroids. I was confused — I’d never tried a drug stronger than dark beer — until she commented that my testosterone levels were high enough to get me booted from elite sports.

I didn’t have PCOS, amenorrhea, hirsutism, or XY chromosomes (though, admittedly, plenty of men don’t). I’d given birth and wasn’t particularly athletic. Genetic tests I underwent while pregnant with my daughter, years later, suggested mosaicism, but randomly testing the genetic material from all over my body would have been prohibitively expensive without much payoff. Those who would label me a confused, mentally ill woman seemed unlikely to be swayed by such truths. Still, under the IAAF’s policies, I would have been classified male, and many of those same people would support that.

While being transgender isn’t currently classified as a disorder of sexual development, many endocrinologists and biologists who work and research in the fields of sex, gender, and genetics believe that gender identity is at least partially — and possibly wholly — biological, and studies seem to show that trans women lag behind cis men in physical strength and body mass even before undertaking hormone therapy. If this is the case, and Lia Thomas was never truly or fully male to begin with, then we must admit that she’s just one more victim of a harmful system that could force any accomplished female athlete to lose her identity, hard-earned medals, and even part of her clitoris, based on measures of sex that seem increasingly arbitrary. And when we allow this to happen to any woman, all women lose.

Describing a childhood spent feeling bewildered and depressed by a body that betrayed her, Lia told a story that is similar to those of many trans people — including my own. Lia discussed how swimming helped her cope, and how the fear of losing her ability to compete led her to put off medically transitioning until her sophomore year at UPenn.

I call bullshit on this. There's so many websites of TiPs that discuss and share tips on how to get hormones, including claiming an unhappy childhood. If Lia felt trans as a kid, why didn't Lia change his name years prior?

Genetic tests I underwent while pregnant with my daughter, years later, suggested mosaicism, but randomly testing the genetic material from all over my body would have been prohibitively expensive without much payoff.

Sure, Jan

[–] ProxyMusic 15 points Edited

Thanks very much for posting the text!

I didn’t have PCOS, amenorrhea, hirsutism, or XY chromosomes (though, admittedly, plenty of men don’t). I’d given birth and wasn’t particularly athletic. Genetic tests I underwent while pregnant with my daughter, years later, suggested mosaicism, but randomly testing the genetic material from all over my body would have been prohibitively expensive without much payoff. Those who would label me a confused, mentally ill woman seemed unlikely to be swayed by such truths.

Still, under the IAAF’s policies, I would have been classified male, and many of those same people would support that.

This is a LIE. The IAAF/WA's policies only apply to persons with disorders of male sex development who have ALL of the following characteristics:

  • XY sex chromosomes;

  • testes, not ovaries;

  • testosterone levels in or exceeding the normal male range, not anywhere near the normal female range;

  • male androgen receptors that work well enough to enable affected athletes to respond to, and use, the high levels of natural T their bodies make as males typically do.

The IAAF/WA DSD regulations now currently in place - which were written after the Dutee Chand case have become in force since May 2019 following the CAS decision in the Caster Semenya case - only apply to athletes with one of a small handful of DSDs, all of which are male-only DSDs.

None of the DSDs covered by current IAAF/WA DSD regulations for women's competition affect, or can affect, female persons who have ovaries and a uterus and the ability to have babies, even if they were born with sex chromosome mosaicism or chimerism - or acquired it later.

One of reasons the IAAF/WA rules pertaining to DSD athletes in women's sports do not apply to female people born with ovaries who have a combination of XX, XY sex chromosomes is because this is a common condition amongst women who have been pregnant with male offspring.

In the course of a pregnancy, fetal cells cross the placenta into the pregnant woman's bloodstream and get deposited in various places all over her body - and those cells often remain many decades later. As a result, it is very common for women who have been pregnant with male offspring to have XY cells with the male offspring's DNA scattered here and there around our bodies. I found this out personally when I had some biopsies in the early 2000s and some of my liver and nerve cells turned out to be XY - and were found to be a match for the DNA of my son obtained through CVS when I was 8-9 weeks pregnant with him.

IAAF doctors tested her testosterone levels and gave her an ultrasound, chromosome analysis, MRI, and physical examination that included “measuring and palpating the clitoris, vagina and labia, as well as evaluating breast size and pubic hair.”

This can't possibly be true. Evaluating breast size? That doesn't even make any sense.

[–] Stealthygal 6 points Edited

measuring and palpating the clitoris, vagina and labia

That doesn't sound like molestation at ALL.

[–] ProxyMusic 2 points Edited

One reason doctors would palpate the "labia" and "clitoris" and "vagina" in a person with Chand's particular disorder of male sex development - PAIS - is because the labia is actually the flattened, empty scrotal sac, the clitoris is the glands of the penis, and the vagina is a shallow pouch made up of inverted penile skin. Malformed male organs have textures and characteristics that are very different to the female organs named - thus they feel very different to the touch.

Another reason doctors would palpate the "labia" of someone like Chand would be to see if there are swellings that could be the testes. It's very common for the testes in PAIS to be partly descended and both visible and palpable in the groin. It's just that the testes didn't make it all the way down inside the scrotum.

Taking measurements of the genitals and internal reproductive organs that didn't develop properly, or which changed size later on, is a standard part of the diagnostic process for DSDs and other medical conditions that can cause genitals to grow or swell such as LOCAH. It's not necessarily a sign of abuse or sexual molestation.

As boys go through puberty, doctors giving them standard well-child checkups will touch their penises and balls to make sure there are no abnormalities. The doctors will pay careful attention to the size of developing boys' penises and balls, sizing them up visually. If the balls and dicks look undersized for the boys' age and stage of development, the doctors will take measurements with instruments to be sure.

When men get past 50, they routinely get their prostates palpated and measured. That's why the condition men suffer after 50 is called "enlarged prostate." Similarly, in other male health problems affecting their genitals, like ED and Peyronie's, the penises of males are commonly measured when flaccid and when erect.

Whenever people have physical anomalies that require medical diagnosis and treatment, it's standard practice for doctors to measure them. I've personally had doctors take and record measurements of ovarian cysts, ganglia cysts, moles and other skin growths, tumors, breast lumps, skin rashes, (swollen) eyeball size, eyeball pupils, eyelid droop, etc at various points in my life. It's not untoward for doctors to look for, and take measurements, in cases of conditions like enlarged livers and hearts.

In fact, much of basic medical care involves measurement of physical features. People get weighed and our height measured in checkups all the time. When women are pregnant, doctors routinely measure our bellies lengthwise to see how far along we are, and around to make sure the pregnancy is progressing as it should. Babies have their head circumference and length measured along with their weight frequently. I've had my BMI determined by HCPs using calipers to measure how much abdominal fat I have. Every time we get a CBC - which stands for "complete blood count," the point is to count and measure our blood cells and also the contents of our blood such as hemoglobin and iron levels. The point of pulmonary function tests is to measure things like lung capacity. The point of sperm tests are to count the number of sperm, measure their size, measure how long their tails are and gauge how fast and well sperm cells can move.

[–] ProxyMusic 12 points Edited

If doctors did that to Chand, which I can easily imagine they did, I am pretty sure they were not doctors working with/for the IAAF/WA - rather, they were doctors working for the national sports body governing track & field in India and overseeing Olympic trials for selection of athletes who would represent India. I don't have the Chand court decision in front of me, but as I recall it, the exams Chand found traumatic and objectionable were done in India at the behest of Indian sports authorities, not the IAAF.

ETA: also the facf of the matter is that there are sound medical reasons for Chand undergoing the kinds of testing and examinations that the doctors in India subjected Chand to because they are key to properly diagnosing Chand's disorder of male sex development. If Chand were female, Chand might not have been so outraged by the kinds of examination and testing Chand underwent. Coz if Chand were female, Chand might have gone to gynecologist before and thus would have understood that that invasive medical exams are part and parcel female medical care.

But Chand's outrage at medical exams and testing that Chand felt violated Chand's dignity notwithstanding, an essential piece of information about Chand's legal proceedings that this writer left out is: Chand did not dispute the accuracy of the findings of the medical doctors who examined and tested Chand. Chand accepted them at face value in court.

Also, IIRC, the IAAF did not require that Chand undergo any more examination of Chand's body. The IAAF accepted the medical reports and findings done by Indian doctors at the behest of Indian sports officials as credible and accurate -just as Chand did. If the IAAF did any more testing in the Chand case, it would only have been of Chand's blood samples - not of Chand's body parts.

It's important to remember that Chand's court challenge was against the Indian national sports federation as well as the IAAF. In fact, the Indian sports authorities were named first in Chand's legal filings.

IRRC, what Chand objected to in court was:

1) the way Indian doctors went about their testing, the way Indian sports officials informed Chand of the results, and the way the Indian doctors and sports authorities treated Chand generally;

2) the decision by Indian sports authorities to use the results of the medical testing they had done on Chand in India to declare Chand ineligible for women's competition and deny Chand a shot to represent India at the Olympics;

3) the decision of the IAAF to use the medical reports on Chand provided by Indian sports officials as the basis for declaring that Chand falls under the IAAF's own DSD regulations that are separate and supplementary to the rules and procedures of the Indian sports authorities;

4) the specific nature of the the IAAF's DSD/"hyperandrogenism" regulations in place at the time;

5) the part of the IAAF's regulations then in place which said that in order to compete in women's IAAF-governed events, Chand would have.

Chand also wanted to sue the Indian government overall for violating Chand's human rights, but apparently didn't have a case.

Sports authorities in India, leading Indian sports figures, Indian sports journalists and the general public in India are generally much less open to allowing DMSD athletes to compete in women's sports than the IAAF and IOC have been. Many in the Indian sports world are staunchly against DMSD athletes in women's sports. In the press and on Twitter, PT Usha, the legendary "mother of Indian track & field," frequently rails against rules that allow athletes with DMSDs into the female field.

https://sportstar.thehindu.com/athletics/pt-usha-dsd-athletes-separate-category-testosterone-levels-world-athletics-46-xy-males-tokyo-2020-olympics/article35348975.ece

Ridiculous, deluded, dishonest article by a TiF.

That petulant "whether you like it or not".

Trying to parrot scientific reasoned debating style by sprinkling phrases like that in amongst all the magical thinking woo nonsense. Give me strength.

How did a reputable newspaper publish drivel like this? It is just trolling or do the editorial team actually believe there is a valid point to be made here?

Can someone archive or post the text, please? I can't read the Indie without registering.

Load more (2 comments)