Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

novonordiskfonden.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 231 posts

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#141

Post by xboxnolifes »

drewcoo wrote: post #133
pseudosavant wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Societal gender norms have existed for probably as long as humans have, but we've only known about chromosomes for On the scale of human evolution, this is a very recent situation for society to figure out how to "decide".

> Societal gender norms have existed for probably as long as humans have Or gender norms have existed since gender was defined in the 70s-80s by feminist scholars. Before that was only sex, which biologists know to be not a binary but a bimodal distribution, itself.

Norms are not defined by scholars or scientists, even if they may define the terms to describe them.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#142

Post by aaaja »

pseudosavant wrote: post #12

Very interesting. Relates to conversations I've had recently regarding trans people in sports. Turns out that conversation isn't simple, because gender is way more complex than the binary M/F options society has tried to act like it is. Between reasons like in this article, or being born intersex, etc, there are definitely people with female chromosomes who have competed in men's sports, or people with female sex org…

This is why sports governing bodies who take a fair view on this have policies that exclude only athletes with male physiological advantage from the female category, rather than the broader group of those with male genetic markers. Which still permits inclusion of athletes with male DSDs like CAIS, who don't have such advantage.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#143

Post by realo »

jodrellblank wrote: post #138
realo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... that would be more than 20,000 USA-ians. Soon targeted for deportation? Or maybe some therapy ... you know ... to make them 'normal' again.

The article isn't talking about trans people, it's talking about Androgen insensitivity and similar genetic disorders. AFAICT from a quick read, they are no more curable than Downe's Syndrome is.

I know all that. Sorry for the too subtle cynism of my previous comment!

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#144

Post by giraffe_lady »

gruez wrote: post #99
giraffe_lady wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does that mean for women's sports? I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority?

>I don't know, I'm not an athlete, coach, tournament organizer, part of a rule-making body, or one of a number of other roles that would give me insight or authority to be involved in that decision. Why does everyone feel comfortable stepping into this conversation with authority? Would you be equally deferential to the organizer/rule-making body if it was some other controversial issue, like whether women could comp…

I don't see the need to create and articulate a universalizeable moral framework to decide how I should react to a specific case in front of me.

I listed rulemakers and organizers but also athletes themselves. I don't know much about the history of the olympics but I would guess the desires and probably activism of women athletes played a role.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#145

Post by aaaja »

sunshowers wrote: post #40
pseudosavant wrote: post #12

Very interesting. Relates to conversations I've had recently regarding trans people in sports. Turns out that conversation isn't simple, because gender is way more complex than the binary M/F options society has tried to act like it is. Between reasons like in this article, or being born intersex, etc, there are definitely people with female chromosomes who have competed in men's sports, or people with female sex org…

The important thing to recognize is that fairness is a pretty fuzzy concept and a lot of the boundary between fair and unfair is defined by particular societal norms (socially constructed, if you will). All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. People like Michael Phelps and Alex Honnold are specific examples of course, but even after years of training most people cannot p…

You can compare the world records of female athletes and male athletes in almost every sport and see that really this is an empirical observation.

To use one of your examples: Michael Phelps has at this point had his records beaten by a number of other male swimmers. But no female swimmer has come close. Not even Katie Ledecky.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#146

Post by aaaja »

KittenInABox wrote: post #73
Empact wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Mediocre men-who-purport-to-be-women beating outstanding actual women, is analogous to a mediocre athlete juicing to beat his more talented competitors. Does this actually happen? I remember seeing the first transgender woman competing in weightlifting, on the olympic stage. So like the most elite of the most elite competition, in a sport where you'd think muscle mass, skeletal size, and testosterone would matter t…

That weightlifter came last due to a disqualification for improper technique, not because of being unable to lift the weight.

If you look at previous performances by that same weightlifter in earlier competitions, although these were mediocre compared to other males, they would be outstanding if this weightlifter was actually female. Middle-aged, relatively unfit, with a chronic injury, and still able to lift significantly more than any other competitor, taking gold medals in the Pacific Games and Commonwealth Weightlifting Championships. Twice in the latter.

This is just one example amongst hundreds. There are loads of these male athletes with male physiological advantage taking medals in women's sports.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#147

Post by sunshowers »

dissent wrote: post #136
sunshowers wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing to recognize is that fairness is a pretty fuzzy concept and a lot of the boundary between fair and unfair is defined by particular societal norms (socially constructed, if you will). All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. People like Michael Phelps and Alex Honnold are specific examples of course, but even after years of training most people cannot p…

[flagged]

> The well being of our daughters should trump the entitlements of transwomen

Trans women are also "our daughters" just as much as cis women (endosex or intersex) are. Caring more about cis daughters' wellbeing than trans daughters' is pretty cissexist!

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#148

Post by sunshowers »

aaaja wrote: post #145
sunshowers wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The important thing to recognize is that fairness is a pretty fuzzy concept and a lot of the boundary between fair and unfair is defined by particular societal norms (socially constructed, if you will). All elite athletes have biological advantages not afforded to ordinary humans like us. People like Michael Phelps and Alex Honnold are specific examples of course, but even after years of training most people cannot p…

You can compare the world records of female athletes and male athletes in almost every sport and see that really this is an empirical observation. To use one of your examples: Michael Phelps has at this point had his records beaten by a number of other male swimmers. But no female swimmer has come close. Not even Katie Ledecky.

Well, yes, I completely agree it makes sense to have two categories.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#149

Post by drcongo »

Barrin92 wrote: post #103
bee_rider wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are coming from a good place, but it is better to not compare our imaginary and implausible concerns (like discovering we’re a giraffe or from another planet) with real problems that people might actually have. I think you actually would have a lot to think about if you found out that you were a giraffe, but we don’t really have to seriously contend with that possibility or what it means. Yes, it is good…

>with real problems that people might actually have. But it's not a real problem, that's my point. The infertility is obviously, but that's not the identity issue here. Most people with infertility issues don't have a sex or gender identity problem, but a medical one. Insofar as your genes matter in regards to your sex, they can only matter in what they express, and that's already done. It's like someone telling you…

I'm really trying to believe you're coming from a good place here, but man, this really looks like a spectacular lack of empathy. Not everybody is like you. Try to look at it from the point of view of another human being, rather than imagining something happening to you. It's not about you.

Re: More women than expected are genetically men (2016)

#150

Post by otterley »

drdeca wrote: post #135
khuey wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So literally every human characteristic other than their sexual reproductive capability is not real?

Well, I said race is "less real" not that it is "not real". Here are other things that are more real than "race": "blood type", "whether one has Down syndrome", "the number of limbs one has". These kinds of properties/classifications are, I claim, more "natural", as far as biology. These groupings into classes are more natural (based on biological properties) than groupings into "races".

Maybe choose a more precise and less judgmental adjective than "real." The opposite of "real" is "fake," not "difficult to substantiate."
Post reply on HN