More women than expected are genetically men (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by ruszki » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:04 PM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #78

pitched wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coming from a place of curiosity not knowledge with this. Is it not true that strength roughly matches testosterone levels and that is bimodal in the population? Could what we call women’s sports today not be defined on that axis instead?

It's not perfectly bimodal. Some people are also more and less sensitive to testosterone. The average woman produces testosterone (I know, crazy) with some conditions like polycystic ovarian syndrome causing their testosterone production to go into overdrive. Some sports actually do test for testosterone in order to determine eligibility (I believe volleyball?) Also, interestingly enough, people that do estrogen inje…

That hormone is testosterone. And that means that no matter how much testosterone those people with Y chromosome(s) get, their body cannot use them. Hence, they have a disadvantage even in women sports.

In theory.

The problem is that for example in women boxing these people are overrepresented. This indicates that testosterone is possibly not the only answer, and we don’t know the full picture AFAIK. But of course it’s also possible that simply Y chromosome causes changes in behavior and not physical performance, and it’s more likely that they like boxing more. We don’t know.

The current best proven differentiator AFAIK is testosterone level and whether their body can process that.

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

#172

Post by autoexec » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:07 PM UTC

zzo38computer wrote: post #139

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…

I think what will be fairer might depend on what sports they are; I think that they will have to be considered for each kind of sports, why they have sex/gender segregation, whether or not you should have a segregation at all (and if so, if it should be by something else instead), etc.

Sports that don't need segregation and where people don't want segregation don't usually have it.

There is no rule that says women can't play in the NFL for example. A combination of biological realities, a lack of interested women, and cultural expectations have just naturally resulted in a segregated system. Any woman who is qualified for and interested in playing in the NFL can and should.

It's fine for people to decide who they want to play with/against too even if that means by definition that some people will have to play somewhere else. If someone wants to start a league of dart players all named Bill so what? May the best Bill win! The thing about sports divisions that segregate themselves (by name, region, age, gender, etc) is that they also limit their success. The best dart player named Bill can't claim to be the best dart player in the state without playing against people with other names.

If people are happy with their accomplishments within whatever division they're comfortable playing in, we can be happy for them too.

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

#173

Post by EnergyAmy » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:27 PM UTC

lukev wrote: post #167

EnergyAmy wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Should" meaning "would if it were mature and healthy" > "humans have two biological sexes" is true in same way as the claim "humans have five fingers." No. There are no intermediates. Nobody produces "spergs" or "speggs". Someone may produce no gametes because they're not yet mature or because of a developmental disorder, but that just means that they will later on in life, or won't produce the gametes their body is…

> healthy You're just using more normative words, implying that you can tell what someone "really" is aside from literally any definition you can articulate, since we've established that gamete size does not apply in all cases. > Sex in humans is binary and immutable, but that doesn't mean boys can't play with dolls and girls can't like trucks or whatever dumb culture war stuff is raging. Unless you are a biologist w…

> normative words

Look, you're trying to argue with the field of biology as a whole. Good luck.

> since we've established that gamete size does not apply in all cases.

We've established no such thing. Find this mystical person first and then we can talk about something specific, instead of just waving your hands about hypotheticals.

> caring so much about this means

This is the worst sort of argument. Spout pseudoscience, get called on your bullshit, and then pull out "why do you care so much??? :(". Don't spout off in the first place and you won't get called out on it.

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

#174

Post by kijjun » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:47 PM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #101

kijjun wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is "we"? That is not established at all, in fact the opposite is objectively true and widely understood. Chromosomes are the key determinant of "gender", by even the most progressive definition of the term.

If anything chromossomes would be the key determinant of sex, not gender. But even that's not how we attribute sex: biologically sex is attributed by the capacity to generate small or big gamete, which means that someone who doesn't produce either type, such as a child or elderly person has no sex.

This is absurd and offensive, and seems like something taken straight out of transsexual propaganda or fantasy.

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

#175

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:56 PM UTC

EnergyAmy wrote: post #94

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…

It is simple. Organisms that produce the larger of two gamete sizes are female, and organisms that produce the smaller of two gamete sizes are male. "Intersex" is a misleading term that's been phased out in favor of DSD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development ). Every person is still male or female. Women have a right to sex-specific sports, and anyone that doesn't qualify is free to compete in t…

> Organisms that produce the larger of two gamete sizes are female, and organisms that produce the smaller of two gamete sizes are male.

That's one of many ways sex is defined and it's definitely useful for some purposes, but I have no idea why some people think that is appropriate for making social distinctions.

> Women have a right to sex-specific sports

Gender (social, including legal, categories based on sex traits are gender, not sex) categories in sports were almost without exception created to prevent men from having to compete with and potentially lose to women. There is certainly an existing practice of gender segregated competition in some some sports and other competitive domains, but I’m not sure where the idea that this practice of segregation is a matter of rights comes from, no matter what basis of assigning gender is used. (Gender segregation has been frequently used as a means of preserving unequal treatment while meeting the US legal obligation for numerically equal opportunities in school sports insuring, but that’s obviously not the same thing as gender segregation being a right.)

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

#176

Post by kijjun » Mon, Jul 28, 2025, 11:59 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #166

gruez wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. You kinda do, otherwise your position just sounds like "why are you talking about trans athletes? You should just Trust the Experts, except when I disagree with them, then it's an Important Moral Issue that the public needs to weigh in on". >I listed rulemakers and organize…

[flagged]

[flagged]

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

#177

Post by Barrin92 » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 1:04 AM UTC

drcongo wrote: post #149

Barrin92 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>this really looks like a spectacular lack of empathy

No, fake kindness isn't empathy. This wasn't about me. Everybody is actually exactly the same in that we all should care about our bodies, nobody should care about the biochemical details of their genes. That doesn't change your body or your personality.

Affirming someone's mistaken identity crisis because you want to show the world how nice you are is actually the opposite. What would help them is understanding exactly what I said, that they are still exactly who they were.

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

#178

Post by xracy » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 1:26 AM UTC

autoexec wrote: post #168

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…

> We have somehow decided that chromosomal advantages are unfair That somehow was mostly because people with certain chromosomal characteristics were heavily disadvantaged in sports, but increasingly wanted participation in them. Because those people (who we called "women") would largely be unable to be competitive and/or would face considerable increased risk of physical harm if they played in/against the same teams…

> There are still places for pretty much everyone who wants to play if they look hard enough, even if not everyone is able to be a part of any team or division that they'd like to.

This reads to me as "separate but equal" which I think is exactly what's wrong with sports divisions. Sports divisions play out the "separate is inherently unequal" at so many levels.

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

#179

Post by KittenInABox » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 1:58 AM UTC

aaaja wrote: post #146

KittenInABox wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 signifi…

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

Then where are they in the olympics? Why didn't trans women take over all medals in all categories? Why was there only one trans woman in fucking weightlifting and her technique apparently sucked so bad that she was disqualified? I'm not like deeply into sports, again, I just tune into the most elite international sports event and I literally do not see what you're talking about.

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

#180

Post by r14c » Tue, Jul 29, 2025, 6:17 AM UTC

kijjun wrote: post #82

r14c wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

controversial, sure, but its mostly people being upset that their cultural norms don't match the traits we observe in humans. we have already established that chromosomes do not determine gender, whether people accept it is a different question. we're also nearing the point where the earth being a spheroid is controversial so I'm not sure controversy really has anything to do with how factual something is.

Who is "we"? That is not established at all, in fact the opposite is objectively true and widely understood. Chromosomes are the key determinant of "gender", by even the most progressive definition of the term.

That's a specific cultural definition of gender. Taking a wider view of human history and behavior tells a more complicated story. The common thread is that Gender is something that people do which is only loosely correlated to human sexual dimorphism.

This doesn't convince people who see their cultural norms as objective reality tho. hence the controversy.