• hitstun
    link
    fedilink
    503 months ago

    OK, so hold up. This isn’t testing if a woman is trans. This test also disqualifies cis women who have genetic conditions that give them masculine physical traits. This article gives examples of women’s gold medalists who are cis but would now be disqualified.

    We might have to replace the men’s and women’s categories with “open” and “two X chromosomes”. Cis and trans people of all genders might be surprised to find whether or not they qualify for the “two X chromosomes” category. Particularly effeminate cis men might qualify for “two X chromosomes”. This actually seems like a fair way to level the playing field, accomplishing what the current men’s and women’s divisions try to do.

    I am a little worried about the idea of disqualifying athletes for having beneficial genes. This could have implications beyond women’s sports, like being banned from basketball for being too tall.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      283 months ago

      Imagine putting in the work to qualify for the Olympics only to find out you’re not a “real” woman by some arbitrary definitions. Michael Phelps has physical characteristics that gave him an edge in his particular sport, but people only tried to talk about his weed use as a disqualifying factor

      • hitstun
        link
        fedilink
        103 months ago

        That’s definitely going to ruin people’s athletic careers, but at least this arbitrary definition has some merit in athletics. It’s important to say that getting disqualified this way doesn’t make someone a less “real” woman. Women can get disqualified from events this way. That’s why I’d rename them to the “open” and “two X chromosomes” contests.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    303 months ago

    “According to our test, you perform sports too well for a woman” is all this feels like it boils down to.

  • Noxy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    263 months ago

    What about athletes with genetics that happen to give them athletic advantages that have nothing at all to do with sex?

    Or athletes from wealthy backgrounds who had greater opportunity to train and condition than poorer athletes?

    This is all so silly to me.

  • JaggedRobotPubes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    53 months ago

    The men need to protest, and we need the names of the individuals at the organization who are still failing to stop this with each passing day.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        223 months ago

        Except when they do, then the ISSF & IOC eventually ban them from participating in Olympic skeet.

        Just ask Zhang Shan!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          23 months ago

          Yes, that’s just silly. Especially if there aren’t any handicaps given like standing closer, e g. how they mix compete in golf.

          Any non-physically demanding sport should be open contest.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      173 months ago

      Olympic performances differ by gender : they are not equal either. (…and yes, i know you are joking)

  • toomanypancakes
    link
    fedilink
    English
    213 months ago

    But remember, men can have huge genetic advantages and they’re just athletes. Michael Phelps doesn’t have an unfair advantage of anything.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    73 months ago

    Why can’t we just have everyone compete all together and just have their gender be next to their name?

    • Something Burger 🍔
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Because women would never see a podium or even be qualified ever again. That’s why they are separated in the first place.

      For example the 100m dash: the world record for women (10.49s) would be 7652nd in the men’s ranking.