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

91–100 of 231 posts

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

#91

Post by sunshowers »

gruez wrote: post #87
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…

>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 the most. And she finished dead last. What happens when other transgender women (sincere or not) realize that they can compete in women's completions, and that their past testosteron…

A 99th percentile trans woman would be competing with other people who have 99th percentile biological advantages, is what I'm trying to say.

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

#92

Post by thomassmith65 »

readthenotes1 wrote: post #52
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…

[flagged]

Testosterone is also an arbitrary criterion. The relevant criteria depend on the sport.

One person may have the same testosterone level as a person three times their height/weight, but that doesn't mean it's safe or fair to have them duke it out in a boxing match.

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

#93

Post by sethrin »

pimlottc wrote: post #28
jawns wrote: post #7

To be more precise than the headline: People with disorders of sex development such as Morris or Swyer syndrome have XY chromosomes, but they have female external genitalia, because the sexual development that would normally be triggered by XY chromosomes is somehow suppressed.

[flagged]

That there can be differing viewpoints on this matter is demonstrative that sex as well as gender is a social construct: the categorization and distinguishing characteristics of sex are normative. It's deeply ironic that the people complaining about "gender ideology" are in fact its purveyors.

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

#94

Post by EnergyAmy »

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 the men's leagues.

Since I'm rate limited, to respond to comment below:

That has been the definition for far longer than any current culture war. Right wingers might be latching onto it now, but broken clocks and all that.

To be slightly more specific, because you think you've found a gotcha, it's the gamete size one would or should produce. Biologists are well aware that there can be disorders of development.

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

#95

Post by AStonesThrow »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #92
readthenotes1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Testosterone is also an arbitrary criterion. The relevant criteria depend on the sport. One person may have the same testosterone level as a person three times their height/weight, but that doesn't mean it's safe or fair to have them duke it out in a boxing match.

[dead]

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

#96

Post by _wire_ »

_lvbh wrote: post #6

> “It is very upsetting for people who have grown up and lived for years believing that they are of a particular sex to suddenly discover that they are actually of the opposite sex. This can be a relief but can also be a loss. For most people it comes as a shock that upends their whole identity. Coping with this can take years,” I find this statement odd. Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determi…

Re simple discoveries and coping:

Take a swig from your drink, then spit it back into the container. Keep drinking from same container. Offer a sip to your friend.

At a restaurant meal, mix all the food you are served together into one pile. Explain how it all gets mixed up in your stomach.

Imagine when a pet dog throws up, then eats its own vomit. Include neighbors dogs joining the feast.

Place a photo of a king rat on your refrigerator or over your dining table. Hang another in view from the toilet.

When reading these scenarios, at a certain point you may have become disturbed or offended, yet empirically there's nothing dangerous or even wrong with any of them.

Explain the dimensions of your distress and how you cope.

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

#97

Post by anon84873628 »

blueflow wrote: post #67
Aurornis wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can't know what is a disorder is or not when you don't know whats "normal" I hesitate to wade into this discussion, but in the case of the conditions listed in the article there are a number of additional symptoms and medical difficulties that go along with the genetic variants. It's not a simple matter of confusion about sex. As for "normal": The biological systems involved are not functioning normally because a g…

Your answer is recursive and sort of leaves the question unanswered, so my reply is kinda an repetition of what i already asked: How do we know what the normal function is? How do we know how things are intended to work? (Intended by whom ?)

Are you actually confused by this? From a biological perspective it's pretty clear what "normal function" is expected. Sexual reproduction is a core goal of human organisms, so when the sex organs don't function, that is a disorder of the machinery.

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

#98

Post by Kye »

r14c wrote: post #27
otterley wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haven't we already established that chromosomes do not determine gender? This statement is extremely controversial. The gender attribution wars are still burning like the Springfield tire fire.

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.

I like to hit people with the fact that the sun isn't the center of the solar system most of the time. Like conservation of momentum and cosmic systems around barycenters, science marches on!

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

#99

Post by gruez »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #79
gruez wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Now, which biological advantages are fair and which are not is determined by society. We have somehow decided that chromosomal advantages are unfair, even though people have exactly as much control over them as they do over the amount of lactic acid they produce or how their amygdala behaves. What's the implication here, that because the distinction is totally arbitrary, that we should do away with it? What does tha…

> 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 compete at all? As a sibling comment mentioned, women couldn't even compete in the olympics before 1900, so if it came up as a culture war topic would your reaction also be "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"?

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

#100

Post by tzs »

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 the fair approach may be to have some kind of rating system based on player performance, and then have separate competitions for players in different rating ranges.

Players should not be allowed to play in competitions below their rating. Include some measures to make it hard for people to purposefully lose in minor competitions to lower their rating so that they can then enter a major competition in a rating group well below their true strength.

Playing in competitions above their rating should generally be allowed, although this might need to vary from sport to sport. For example in a top level knock out tournament that had a few low level players enter their opponents in the first round would have a much easier chance of making it to the second round than the other high level participants.

There still might need to be some gender restricted competitions for social reasons. In a sport where there is a large gender imbalance among players, especially at the scholastic levels, people of the minority gender might be discouraged from playing because they don't want to stick out.

Competitions restricted to the minority gender give those players a chance to develop to the point that they can be comfortable playing the events that are open to all genders.

Post reply on HN