This doesn't work as out of a man and woman of the same weight the man will still be stronger on average. Women have a higher body fat percentage, and less muscle in their upper body simply because they have less testosterone. You would probably have to use testosterone as a way of categorizing people in sport. It sucks but there is no other fair way I can see.
There is no "fair". You can't have it. Tall people usually win in basketball. Narrow builds do better in marathons. People older for their age bracket (as kids) are more likely to enter the NHL (growing up they're bigger so they get more playing time). So yeah, whatever you do, most of us are starting with a big disadvantage at any sport, even if we put in the same effort our whole lives.
That's life. The question is how to make rules knowing all of that.
Wow, it's almost like trying to measure and codify man- and womanhood is inherently dangerous and phobic, even to cisgendered people who don't meet the nebulous standards set by bigots who are obsessed with other people's genitals, and we should maybe just stop doing that and let people identify themselves however they want?
Babyslime is the woman who decided to have no prenatal care at all for her second pregnancy, and delivered a baby with mermaid syndrome (sirenomelia) which is linked to uncontrolled maternal gestational diabetes, and when the baby was breech and she was in labour at like 28 weeks, the obstetrician told her he had to do a C section, and she spent the rest of her time on her blog claiming she was medically raped or birth raped. She is a shitty person.
[tumblr]
It's really simple. If you're born with a vagina and you naturally have elevated testosterone levels, you're a man. If you have a vagina and you take testosterone, you're a woman. But also if you have a vagina, you'll never be a man. But also if you have higher testosterone then you were never a woman. Woman never yes man a vagina testosterone no was an elevated. Vagina man.
One reason is because your chromosomes donβt control genital development, your hormones do. So if youβre born with XY chromosomes and your testosterone receptors donβt work then youβll develop female genitals and a generally female physiology (minus reproductive organs).
This is all separate from gender expression obviously, but things are hard because the world is complex. If you havenβt seen or experienced this complexity in your life, thatβs fine. But donβt diminish the complexity of otherβs experiences just because they donβt match your own.
I personally know someone like that. She's currently raising a kid she gave birth to thanks to a donated egg and IVF. Chromosomes are useful for first order approximations, but biology is a glorious fucking mess that cares not for simple binaries.
I hope that the person you're responding to will be able to form a new opinion after seeing these very measured and thoughtful responses. I'm really pleased with how calmly the community is handling this particular comment.
As a general rule, when it comes to any science, the version you learn in grade school is extremely simplified to the point of being almost entirely useless. To draw a parallel to physics, if you ask a physicist "how many states of matter are there?", they'd probably consider it a difficult and poorly defined question, the exact distinction between a distinct state and a subset/variant of a state is up for discussion, but any coherent model has at least 20 states. What you're saying is the equivalent of "what's so hard about solid, liquid and gas?"
Chromosomal sex
Genetic sex
Hormonal sex
Cells sex
Put it all into a matrix I would love to see the population distribution across this table.
Surly we can simply define a subset of the combinations. Cos the only other solution is to simply through out the concept of gender divisions but that just ain't gonna work.
Can somebody please enlighten me with some numbers on the commonality of said deviations. I always assumed they made up such a small percentage it wasnt relevent same as people with 4 or 6 fingers.