alt.hn

3/26/2026 at 2:32:34 PM

Olympic Committee bars transgender athletes from women’s events

 https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/26/world/olympics/ioc-transgender-athletes-ban.html

by RestlessMind

3/26/2026 at 8:34:29 PM

My two cents as a transfem athlete:

The attention this topic receives is disproportionate considering how rare we are, especially close to the Olympics level.

Most of us do sports for fun/friends and don’t care how they rank us, but would be sad to be banned.

There might be more “biological advantage” nuance with people just starting their transition, but by this many years in it feels silly. I registered as a man for the last event in case anyone might get upset, the staff changed it to say “woman” when I got there anyways, and then I lost to a woman twice my age.

by callistocodes

3/26/2026 at 9:39:48 PM

This is one of the rare problems where there exists no good solution to the issue.

Even without taking transfem athletes into consideration, there still remains a problem for women's sports in that sex (not gender) is not fully black and white, male and female, and some high-performing female athletes show signs of intersex, which has caused this entire hysteria about checking for penises.

How do you ever come up with a sane way to deal with this? (apart from events that are genderless like shooting)

Then we have sports that needn't be gendered because of physical differences, but are anyway, e.g. esports.

by qingcharles

3/26/2026 at 9:48:21 PM

> and some high-performing female athletes show signs of intersex, which has caused this entire hysteria about checking for penises.

This is a gross (literally) misunderstanding of the entire topic

The ruling covers a lot of the nuanced cases, including rare DSDs that may never even apply to Olympic athletes

The tests DO NOT check for genitals. It's a cheek swab that checks genetics.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 9:44:06 PM

The issue is that “woman’s sports” is itself intentionally discriminatory. That the issue of discrimination comes up is to be expected.

The idea of competitive sports exists in a framework of discrimination means that you are always have unhappy people.

The good news is that sports, for the most part, is mostly symbolic, and rarely affects ones livelihood.

by scoofy

3/26/2026 at 9:46:46 PM

Unfortunately pointless, mostly symbolic things attract the most hysterical reactions from people.

by TimorousBestie

3/26/2026 at 9:47:10 PM

You're still commenting here?

You should be back in prison for trying to sexually abuse children.

Filthy pedophile scumbag.

by qingnonce

3/26/2026 at 9:31:54 PM

> The attention this topic receives is disproportionate considering how rare we are

Yes, it’s about building the infrastructure of hate. It’s how you sell it.

Like if you want mass censorship infrastructure you talk about doing it “for the children”, then immediately forget about them after the job is done.

by Herring

3/26/2026 at 8:59:07 PM

> The attention this topic receives is disproportionate considering how rare we are, especially close to the Olympics level.

We all remember state-sponsored doping scandals from the 60s where iron curtain nations invested heavily on medical research and experiments on prospective athletes to try to get medals. It's not hard to understand how badly this would turn out to be if the same sort of unscrupulous regime could just abuse this loophole to seek the same benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany

As far as I see, this issue is only tangentially related to transgender rights.

by locknitpicker

3/26/2026 at 9:45:31 PM

If an unscrupulous regime wanted to get medals with that method they'd just give cis women testosterone during puberty. Nothing about the new trans-exclusionary standards would deter that.

No XY chromosome no SRY gene. You're left with validating that someone's entire development was done in the absence of testosterone, which would--if even possible--require incredibly invasive and extensive testing.

by juneyyyyyy

3/26/2026 at 9:15:15 PM

What an absurd justification

by turtlesdown11

3/26/2026 at 9:11:08 PM

> but would be sad to be banned.

Enforcing the existing and long-standing sex-based classification is not a ban; competition within one’s own sex category was always and remains permitted.

by frumplestlatz

3/26/2026 at 9:28:09 PM

If you were required to compete with people of a gender you do not identify with, even when event organisers recognise you as more fitting among the other group, that's a ban. There are trans masc people. Requiring them to compete with women is unfair and disrespectful. Requiring trans fem people to do so is the same. The rules around gender identification in regulated sports require proof of medical treatment yada yada to accept that people are 'trans enough', which is itself discriminatory. Trans people are a lot less distinct and separate from everyone else than you'd be led to think.

by etherus

3/26/2026 at 9:34:55 PM

[flagged]

by huntny

3/26/2026 at 9:41:44 PM

Is this happening? I believe there are ~10 trans ncaa athletes. We're just hunting them. Why?

by etherus

3/26/2026 at 9:32:51 PM

The classification is based on sex, expressly due to the material differences between the sexes.

It is not and has never been rooted in any sort of sociological concept of gender as an independent category from one’s sex.

by frumplestlatz

3/26/2026 at 9:45:19 PM

The material difference between people we bar and do not bar is not large enough to constitute a difference against competing with people we assign within the same sex group [1][2][3]. This might feel counterintuitive, but please consider that trans people who have medically transitioned are not as different from cis people of the same gender than you expect. Hormones do a lot. [1] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2026/01/22/bjsports-2025-... [2]https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2024/04/10/bjsports-2023-... [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10641525/

by etherus

3/26/2026 at 9:33:32 PM

[flagged]

by erxam

3/26/2026 at 9:20:26 PM

[flagged]

by sintlpl

3/26/2026 at 9:32:06 PM

[flagged]

by erxam

3/26/2026 at 9:37:05 PM

No it's because in almost every sport, male sex development bestows significant performance advantages.

This is easy to see even with a casual glance. Look at the world records for any sport with measurable and comparable metrics, like times for swimming, running, etc. The difference between the most elite female and male athletes is stark.

by huntny

3/26/2026 at 9:43:25 PM

The differences are marginal and mostly depend on the hormonal load present in each individual athlete.

Males are not scrutinized anywhere near as closely, so they always get away with higher levels of anabolic steroids/hGH/rhEPO/random peptides than women would. Women are subject to constant, consistent testing, while male doping testing is basically an honor system (just don't be too obvious about it).

by erxam

3/26/2026 at 5:31:05 PM

Trans women have competed as women in the Olympics once ever and have 0 medals. By the numbers it's a non issue under previous rules (despite the incredible amount of ink spilled over it). People are talking about trans women here but the vast majority of people affected by this change are women who are not trans who have a "disorder of sexual development".

by tdb7893

3/26/2026 at 7:43:55 PM

The IOC policy is specifically that athletes need to test negative for the SRY gene to be eligible to compete in the female category. Imane Khelif won gold in the 2024 Summer Olympics women's boxing event, and has since admitted to having the SRY gene. So it isn't a non-issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imane_Khelif#2026

by themgt

3/26/2026 at 8:21:26 PM

So it's the headline that's inaccurate. It should read "bars women with the SRY gene" rather than "transgender."

by rideontime

3/26/2026 at 8:51:31 PM

The ruling itself is much more nuanced and covers a lot of situations, including extremely rare disorders of sexual development (DSD) and their variations. The most recent controversies on this topic did not involve transgender athletes, but that's largely unknown or misunderstood by people who only know this topic by headlines and sound bites.

The headline writers are relating it back to the topic which brings the most clicks, which is transgender athletes.

The IOC didn't go on a crusade against transgender athletes specifically. They were refining the rules on sex-based divisions and included a lot of considerations and nuance.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 8:23:01 PM

[flagged]

by fretboard

3/26/2026 at 8:46:42 PM

[flagged]

by colpabar

3/26/2026 at 9:10:21 PM

Not quite. Only male athletes who have male physiological advantage. A small subset of male athletes with specific disorders of sex development that preclude this advantage may still compete as female.

by blippz

3/26/2026 at 7:57:45 PM

The page you link to doesn’t say that. “As of February 2026, Khelif had not described herself as intersex or as having a DSD.”

by Philadelphia

3/26/2026 at 8:49:27 PM

That page is at the center of a massive debate on Wikipedia for that specific topic.

Khelif responded to a question about having the SRY gene like this:

> In a February 2026 interview with L'Équipe, Khelif was asked: "To be clear, you have a female phenotype but possess the SRY gene, an indicator of masculinity", to which she responded: "Yes, and it’s natural. I have female hormones."

So she was asked if she had the SRY gene and she responded "Yes". That's also consistent with the previous issues with governing bodies excluding her under their rules, but they are not allowed to share test results for obvious reasons.

The debate now is down to technicalities. Technically the Wikipedia quote is correct in that Khelif has not described herself as intersex or having a DSD in those words but she has now admitted to having an SRY gene, which is the important part in the context of these competition rules.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 8:03:30 PM

There is a leaked medical report showing that Khelif has internal testes:

https://www.dw.com/en/algeria-condemns-baseless-imane-khelif...

The Talk page has extensive debates on whether this can be mentioned, and the current "consensus" is that it can't be.

by decimalenough

3/26/2026 at 8:39:57 PM

The article is saying that there are fairly credible denials no?

by space_fountain

3/26/2026 at 9:09:02 PM

One can browse the websites of the media outlets that published excerpts from the leaked medical report and karyotype test report and view these directly.

Collectively, they show that Khelif has:

- XY chromosomes

- internal testes

- male-typical levels of testosterone

- a diagnosis of 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which is a condition that only affects males

And now we also have an interview where Khelif answers in the affirmative to a question about having the SRY gene.

There is no explanation that fits all of this other than Khelif being male.

by blippz

3/26/2026 at 9:21:02 PM

If you non-critically accept everything people publish online as truth, then you probably will have to make even crazier explanations.

by blks

3/26/2026 at 9:31:37 PM

I have seen crazy explanations about this all being a Russian conspiracy, in an attempt to bolster the claim that Khelif is female. Doesn't really hold up to scrutiny though.

by blippz

3/26/2026 at 8:24:16 PM

Internal testes due to 5-ARD, a disorder of sex development that causes the penis to be underdeveloped, which explains why Khelif was erroneously assigned female at birth.

by fretboard

3/26/2026 at 9:19:10 PM

It’s incorrect to call this a “leaked medical report”. This is a document of unknown origin, widely shared by online grifters.

by blks

3/26/2026 at 9:09:45 PM

[flagged]

by conradfr

3/26/2026 at 7:20:30 PM

The guidelines for trans female athletes for the 2024 Paris Olympics involved transitioning before the age of 12/puberty to be eligible.

There's more info at https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/paris-2024-olym...

by canucker2016

3/26/2026 at 8:05:28 PM

Incidentally, many countries/states are working hard to make it impossible to transition that early.

by kg

3/26/2026 at 8:21:25 PM

At 12 you simply do not have sufficient capacity to make a good decision on the matter.

by andsoitis

3/26/2026 at 8:58:30 PM

That subtilely implies it’s a decision to view oneself as a different gender from what was assigned at birth, but it’s not entirely clear it’s a choice in every case. Edge cases in biology get wild and sex assigned at birth can be a near arbitrary decision. Ex: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Parents making major medical decisions has a huge precedent in a wide range of procedures with significant risks and consequences. Separating conjoined twins for example.

by Retric

3/26/2026 at 8:42:55 PM

Which is why puberty blockers are prescribed to transgender children, delaying puberty until later in life when a "good decision" can be made, usually closer to the mid to late teens.

by skyyler

3/26/2026 at 8:54:35 PM

Sadly, it's not possible to "delay puberty" until later in life without permanent consequences. Puberty cannot simply be resumed later. Puberty blockers alter hormones dramatically during critical growth phases. It can't be reversed later if the person changes their mind.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 9:03:19 PM

It is absolutely possible, and it has been done in cisgender children with precocious puberty for decades.

> Puberty blockers alter hormones dramatically during critical growth phases.

Which is generally the goal. It is of course not possible to retroactively have allowed puberty to progress as though the blockers had never been taken, but it is possible to cease the blockers and allow it to resume, again, as is done for cisgender children who take them.

It almost feels like you're arguing definitions.

by delecti

3/26/2026 at 9:09:03 PM

> It is absolutely possible, and it has been done in cisgender children with precocious puberty for decades

Precocious puberty is a condition in which puberty happens earlier than it's supposed to.

The goal of puberty blockers in precocious puberty is to delay puberty until the correct age and physiological growth window.

Puberty blocker in precocious puberty are also not used to induce hormonal profiles that are different than the body's eventual genetic set point, just to delay them until typical puberty ages.

Delaying puberty until it aligns with the body's expected pubertal ages is completely different. You cannot extrapolate and claim this as evidence that we can safely delay puberty until adulthood, well beyond pubertal age.

> but it is possible to cease the blockers and allow it to resume, again

I don't understand what you're trying to claim, but ceasing the medications does not reverse the changes they made during critical teenage growth windows.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 9:35:02 PM

It's unclear what age puberty is "supposed to" happen. The age of onset of puberty has gotten substantially younger, even just over the past couple hundred years. If the "correct" age is what we see today, then there's thousands of generations of humans who had puberty naturally occur "too late" yet we're all still here to talk about it. If the "correct" age instead is when it used to occur, then everyone should go on puberty blockers for a few years to avoid this unnatural surge of precocious puberty.

> I don't understand what you're trying to claim, but ceasing the medications does not reverse the changes they made during critical teenage growth windows.

Puberty blockers do not themselves induce changes. They block hormones whose job is to trigger release of sex hormones which would induce changes. For young trans people, access to blockers can save them from a lifetime of dealing with the consequences of a puberty they did not want. Likewise, blockers can save a cisgender child from unwanted consequences of a puberty happening too early.

That doesn't mean "until adulthood", it could just be a few years. But even then, I think blockers are a compromise to appease people who doubt the ability of trans kids to make their own decisions about their bodily autonomy. I think trans people should be able to go on cross-sex hormones basically at will, but certainly after no more than a cursory chat with a therapist.

by delecti

3/26/2026 at 9:38:40 PM

> It's unclear what age puberty is "supposed to" happen. The age of onset of puberty has gotten substantially younger, even just over the past couple hundred years.

The change over the past couple hundred years is measured on the order of a couple years at most.

This has nothing at all to do with hormonal intervention until adult ages. Once someone reaches adulthood the window for a lot of changes has closed.

> Puberty blockers do not themselves induce changes. They block hormones whose job is to trigger release of sex hormones which would induce changes.

You're either not understanding, or trying to avoid an inconvenient point: Once blocked during critical periods, many of those changes simply cannot happen at a later date.

Puberty cannot be delayed until adulthood and then resumed as if nothing happened.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 9:09:46 PM

But surely puberty, not just maturity, is necessary to fully understand the sexual experience and whether your feelings about yourself crystalise differently in the presence of sexual drive. Not to mention, the idea of delaying puberty seems like an invitation for unrelated and/or unforeseen downstream consequences on biological health.

by simondotau

3/26/2026 at 9:04:40 PM

> At 12 you simply do not have sufficient capacity to make a good decision on the matter.

At 12 kids do not have sufficient capacity to handle any major decision, including any medical procedure.

That does not take away their right to see their best interests represented and defended.

by locknitpicker

3/26/2026 at 9:26:17 PM

And yet we cannot stop time, and a decision has to be made. It seems natural to involve the child in this decision.

Of course, the next best thing (if a decision can't be made now) after stopping time are puberty blockers. Which are not completely without risks, but this applies to the other two options just as well (if not more so).

You can't not make decisions, and to claim so is to frame choosing one particular option as not-a-decision.

by esterna

3/26/2026 at 9:19:20 PM

and yet trans children exist and deserve medical care and social acceptance just like anyone else

by locopati

3/26/2026 at 8:42:13 PM

Yup. Absolutely insane that university "educated" people have been telling us that kids who believe in Santa Claus are capable of making decisions like this.

by appreciatorBus

3/26/2026 at 8:57:40 PM

Have you considered that due to their education and research those people may know more on the subject than you do?

Regret rates for transition remain notoriously low (within 2%) with main reasons for regret stated to be transitioning too late or environmental lack of acceptance or support.

Besides, despite some orgs claiming there is a "transgender trend", we are just not seeing this in the data.

by Ralfp

3/26/2026 at 9:11:34 PM

That sounds like appeal to authority, it is classified as a fallacy.

by AdrianB1

3/26/2026 at 9:14:06 PM

Why is it okay for OP to question authority in the subject matter while me pointing out they research it more isn't?

I have also pointed out that regret rates for transition are within 2%.

by Ralfp

3/26/2026 at 9:37:24 PM

[dead]

by salemh

3/26/2026 at 9:02:03 PM

How old are kids when they get their foreskin lopped off?

by mvc

3/26/2026 at 9:18:00 PM

Indeed, that’s a barbaric custom, akin to genital mutilation, that should be reserved for a real medical necessity, never for religious reasons

by nomdep

3/26/2026 at 9:07:22 PM

[flagged]

by nslsm

3/26/2026 at 9:07:49 PM

They do not make that decision, and it is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

by zahlman

3/26/2026 at 9:20:09 PM

Then we should prescribe puberty blockers to everyone until they can make such a decision.

by undersuit

3/26/2026 at 5:59:29 PM

Is it fair to say that they can just compete in the men's division?

by lewdev

3/26/2026 at 7:39:13 PM

From a biological perspective, the women being banned here are not just men and as far as I'm aware cannot realistically compete in the men's division any more than any other woman. Practically these changes bar women athletes with certain medical differences from competing in the Olympics.

I'm not an expert so idk whether that's fair or not but that's what this decision is doing.

by tdb7893

3/26/2026 at 8:48:48 PM

To be fair, that could be said of many other medical conditions as well, especially chromosomal abnormalities such as Down Syndrome. Many humans, from the moment they are born and through no fault of their own, have virtually no hope of ever competing in the Olympics let alone winning, just because at such competitive extremes, any significant genetic disadvantage takes you out of the running.

by mitthrowaway2

3/26/2026 at 8:34:47 PM

I'm barred from the Olympics, due to my too short legs and flat-footedness, for the high jump event.

by yostrovs

3/26/2026 at 7:55:11 PM

[flagged]

by frumplestlatz

3/26/2026 at 8:24:12 PM

Like most things in biologicy, categorization is a nightmare unless you have a very specific use case in mind. In this case I'm talking about women phenotypically and socially (including self-identity) and especially athletes assigned female at birth. These women are clearly not just "males".

by tdb7893

3/26/2026 at 9:07:52 PM

As far as I understand the ontology of human phenotype, it is unchanged by use of cross-sex hormone therapy.

by frumplestlatz

3/26/2026 at 9:27:46 PM

what is your expertise in this area? fox news?

by turtlesdown11

3/26/2026 at 8:12:57 PM

For most of the sports there is no men's division - it's open for everyone.

by Dma54rhs

3/26/2026 at 6:19:08 PM

It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.

by harveychess

3/26/2026 at 7:38:34 PM

> It would not be fair, because the point of having divisions is allow women to compete in a competition that is not dominated by men.

Really, what it is is being dominated by Testosterone. Also why we ban steroid use, and many other things along the same lines.

I would suggest that most Olympians - both female and male (whatever your definition) likely have a higher than normal amount of that hormone.

by RajT88

3/26/2026 at 7:33:44 PM

I think you're falling for Sticker Swap Fallacy. The goal is to have fair match-ups in sports. Gender and sex are two possible labels to use to assist with this, but they're imperfect enough that we probably ought to not use them as the primary differentiator.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/C7LcpRtrHiKJRoAEp/sticker-sh...

by trickyager

3/26/2026 at 7:43:21 PM

The solution is simple: class every sport like boxing.

Pick a sports-relevant metric and split into divisions. Some sports will naturally fall into gendered divisions, while others will have varying degrees of co-ed competition among competitors of similar ability.

The way out of this is not to pick a better scissor of sex or gender, it's to pick a better scissor of ability.

by kelseyfrog

3/26/2026 at 7:58:28 PM

This "solution" can really only be proposed by someone who has not played sports. This would simply result in women being unable to compete in sports professionally, outside of a couple small niches like ultra long distance swimming and a couple sub-disciplines of gymnastics.

I do not consider that to be a good thing.

by baumy

3/26/2026 at 8:05:54 PM

It really depends on the way classes are divided. Dismissing the general concept demonstrates a fear of change rather than a legitimate openness to fair play.

by kelseyfrog

3/26/2026 at 8:11:28 PM

No it doesn't, and no it doesn't. Proposing this concept demonstrates a profound ignorance of what competition at the top level of sports actually looks like.

The concept is just bad, unless your goal is to prevent women from being able to make a living playing professional sports.

by baumy

3/26/2026 at 8:16:29 PM

The thing is, we're already using a scissor for ability, just a poor one with the exact problem you describe - it renders trans women unable to make a living playing professional sports. Throwing one group under the bus for another cannot be avoided so long as sex or gender are part of sports divisions.

Please let go of the need for this.

by kelseyfrog

3/26/2026 at 8:20:36 PM

You are clearly out of your depth. Have you ever competed in high level sports? Please don't speak on things you know nothing about. It takes a lot of gall to tell someone 'please let go of the need for this' when they are pointing this out. I will do no such thing, but I likely will give up trying to educate you.

I won't respond further unless you pick an example sport, and propose how your "scissor for ability" would work, in concrete detail. If you do this, I will be happy to explain why this would result in neither women _nor trans women_ having any chance to make a living as professional athletes.

by baumy

3/26/2026 at 9:40:38 PM

I have competed in reasonably high level sports, and my wife was US Masters duathlete of the year a few years ago (with me as her coach). I think you're wrong, though it's easy to see why.

Currently, with sex-based categories, a woman can be declared "the best in the world" and most people won't waste much time on the question "yeah, but could she beat the best men?" (granted, some will). They will accept that, e.g. she has the fastest time over 26.2 miles in the world right now, even though a few hundred or a few thousand men worldwide are faster.

If you use performance based metrics to create the categories (the way that road cycling does, for example, though still within gender divisions), that "title" would go away, and likely a woman would only be "the best in the world in division X", other than in (as you noted) some endurance, climbing and gymnastics sports where an elite subset of women could potentially be the best of "top" category.

It isn't completely obvious that this is a negative - how much of a change it would be would depend on a lot of other changes (or lack thereof) in how sport was organized. Certainly if it continued to focus on only the top division, then women would be shut out of most opportunities to be professional. But that's not inherent in the design. I do concede, however, that it is quite a likely outcome of such a category structure.

by PaulDavisThe1st

3/26/2026 at 8:30:57 PM

Let's use the present scissor and the current state of affairs, which at present excludes some women for the sake of others. Which, I'll remind you, comes with all of the problems we currently experience.

by kelseyfrog

3/26/2026 at 7:53:23 PM

Doesn’t Boxing use weight classes?

by 2muchcoffeeman

3/26/2026 at 9:41:13 PM

Weight classes within gender classes. Women would have no chance to compete against men of identical weight, all else equal. Men have more lean mass.

by lbreakjai

3/26/2026 at 7:11:09 PM

[flagged]

by bpodgursky

3/26/2026 at 7:15:15 PM

[flagged]

by rolymath

3/26/2026 at 7:34:51 PM

No it is not. They vote for Trump simply because they are assholes.

Considering his party plans for women as such, none of them cares about women, actually

by watwut

3/26/2026 at 7:20:10 PM

Almost every single person on Earth is not built of the right genetic stuff to compete with male Olympic athletes, me and you included. Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?

by mvdtnz

3/26/2026 at 5:41:46 PM

The Olympics are looked up to by a large range of people and organization that don't actually participate in the Olympics.

This goes beyond just affecting the Olympics, but setting an example for the world to follow and gives other organizations the cover and courage to follow while being able to deflect to simply setting the same standards of the Olympics.

by mothballed

3/26/2026 at 7:03:52 PM

[flagged]

by MengerSponge

3/26/2026 at 5:19:38 PM

Only logical result is Transgender Olympics

by nilslindemann

3/26/2026 at 6:49:26 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_Done_Quick

by nslsm

3/26/2026 at 7:35:50 PM

[flagged]

by sillysaurusx

3/26/2026 at 7:50:13 PM

Would it?

It's the most popular event for speedrunning and has raised millions of dollars each year for over a decade. Sounds like they're doing just fine as is and, perhaps, fostering an inclusive environment which explicitly protects people demonized by society at large has only helped, not hurt.

by mbStavola

3/26/2026 at 8:43:19 PM

[flagged]

by sillysaurusx

3/26/2026 at 7:40:38 PM

Being inclusive seems to be a big part of their mission.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 7:43:03 PM

Is it?

"The organization's mission is to leverage high-level speedrunning gameplay from community events to support humanitarian efforts, having raised over $59 million to date."

"Charity Fundraising: The primary goal is to maximize donations for charity, notably Doctors Without Borders and the Prevent Cancer Foundation."

The word "humanitarian" seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting there. Technically any goodwill effort could be considered humanitarian, since it affects humans. But clearly some efforts are more effective than others, and they have to choose which to amplify.

by sillysaurusx

3/26/2026 at 7:59:19 PM

They don't seem to have a page directly talking about goals, but look at their front page. Specifically the section at the bottom talking about community stuff, which also has prominent links in the top bar.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 5:45:03 PM

Why not Human Olympics?

by bertylicious

3/26/2026 at 7:03:20 PM

Already exists, it's what people refer to as "male olympics". As far as I know, females aren't banned from competing. It is just that they don't stand a chance in most disciplines. The whole point of female olympics is to keep males out.

by cm2187

3/26/2026 at 8:59:07 PM

That’s not true. Men’s gymnastics and women’s gymnastics are totally different sets of events and men would get trounced in a women’s event.

by UncleMeat

3/26/2026 at 9:41:10 PM

Putting aside that you argue entirely by assertion, that is one discipline, which therefore does not contradict the claim about "most disciplines".

Meanwhile the gap is well known to be massive in typical events, e.g.:

* Compare https://worldpowerlifting.com/records/womens-world-records/ vs https://worldpowerlifting.com/records/mens-world-records/ (or for that matter, browse through https://exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/StrengthStandards)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_100_metres_world_recor... plateaued at numbers seen in men's competition over a century ago; a "sub-elite" female competitor sprints barely ahead of "intermediate recreational" men per https://marathonhandbook.com/average-100-meter-time/ . Griffith-Joyner's record-setting time would not have even qualified her to run with men since at least 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres_at_the_Olympics

* I often hear it suggested that women show an advantage in longer races, but even at standard marathon length this is not borne out in results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Boston_Marathon

* National and international level competitive women's sports teams regularly get trounced by teenaged boys in exhibition e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDH_r7-GN4o widely reported on last year and https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/a-dallas-fc-under-15-b... from 2017

* The entire history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis) requires quite a bit of creative interpretation to put women's tennis anywhere near the level of men's

That's just off the top of my head of anecdotes and examples I can recall being casually thrown around in these sorts of discussions.

by zahlman

3/26/2026 at 7:15:48 PM

Can trans male who transitioned before puberty compete in male olympics while being pumped full of steroids legally?

by xeonmc

3/26/2026 at 7:29:41 PM

Maybe they should accept that they simply aren't competitive if they can't compete against their own sex. There's no shame in it, most people aren't competitive, certainly so at this level.

by mikkupikku

3/26/2026 at 7:19:38 PM

Why not ignore gender labels and go by chromosomal configuration? There could be XY and XX [1] olympics. And then there should be X, XYY, XXX, XXXY, XXYY, and all the other possibilities [2].

There is more complexity than the binary in the expression of sex in humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_huma...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

by krunck

3/26/2026 at 9:29:50 PM

That is what they do. Male, female, man, woman, boy, girl are sex categories, not gender categories, that is they predate the very idea of gender as distinct from sex.

Sports categories never had anything to do with gender.

The other difference of sexual development are different sexes

by RansomStark

3/26/2026 at 7:39:01 PM

All biological categories are fuzzy around the edges. Those fuzzy edges do not invalidate the category. The existence of small #'s of people with actual physical intersex conditions (not "I feel like <x>") in no way conflicts with humans being sexually dimorphic.

by appreciatorBus

3/26/2026 at 9:40:33 PM

Really, there should be separate categories for people with more than the regular amount of arm hair. Also separate categories for short people, tall people, lazy people, people who wear glasses, people with blue trousers, and of course, for sketch artists and quantitative traders.

by madaxe_again

3/26/2026 at 7:33:57 PM

I agree with you in general, but I think it would be fair to let XY individuals with CAIS compete on the female side - their bodies do not respond to testosterone.

by badc0ffee

3/26/2026 at 5:20:40 PM

Has anyone measured trans athletes performance?

I see this topic come up repeatedly in different guises, protect women from the evil trans-agenda. But I haven't seen where this is actually a problem.

Do trans-athletes regularly out perform "born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it) athletes?

by happymellon

3/26/2026 at 6:14:24 PM

Many studies show with in ~10% female ranges of ability , but, having more fast twitch muscle fiber and bone mass from male puberty if they went through it. Bone mass does eventually drop to female levels but over decades not years so athletes would likely be out of athletic prime before that happens. Studies showing more dramatic results that stand out in my memory that lean toward transwomen outperforming transwomen are studies done on military veterans comparing to general population metrics of muscle mass for athletic activity levels also done with a very low population count I believe they only looked at under 300 trans women. Regardless we need more research, but there are a comically small amount of trans athletes seeking professional level sports, like I think <20 for all college level for instance.

Anecdotally, I found as a deskjob, pilates and casual weight lifting trans woman, I lost dramatic amount of strength and muscle mass. 20 pounds now feels like 50 pounds did for myself pre-transition. I usually participate with women and the instructor/personal helps with modifications usually aimed at women just getting into fitness. Running joke amongst friends is how easily I am outperformed by my female friends at the gym/pilates/etc. However, that's since my body is low testosterone even for females, its checked twice a year because of it, normally It's once a year for most trans people. Other friends retained a lot of their strength, but are mechanics, so its really situational in my opinion, and its a super hard and interesting topic of research because of it

by AnEro

3/26/2026 at 7:38:04 PM

> Do trans-athletes regularly out perform "born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it) athletes?

The closest controlled study we have on this topic is not in athletes but in U.S. military servicemembers and their standard fitness test: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36271916/

This isn't a good study for professional athletes training for competition because the fitness test is not analogous to professional competition. They only need to pass with a reasonable score but most are not competing for the top position like in the Olympics

The study found that

> transgender females' performance showed statistically significantly better performance than cisgender females until 2 years of GAHT in run times and 4 years in sit-up scores and remained superior in push-ups at the study's 4-year endpoint.

So of the 3 simple activities they tested their performance remained higher in one test (run times) until 2 years, another test (sit-ups) until 4 years, and remained higher at the end of the limited 4-year study period in the last test (push-ups).

This study was widely circulated as "proof" that hormone therapy erases sex-based gains after only 2 years, but that's not even an accurate read of the study. It's also not measuring athletes who are training or trying to compete.

Depending on the sport, hormone therapy cannot be expected to compensate for sex some important sex differences like physical structure. Male anatomy is simply different in ways that provide different types of leverage or angles (like Q Angle, which runners will talk about, or reach, which is important to boxers)

This is a very taboo topic to discuss and honestly I'm a little nervous to even comment about it here pseudonymously. The popular culture discussion of the topic is very different than the sports science discussion of the topic, where sex differences have long been accepted to be innate and irreversible, regardless of hormone therapy.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 5:42:16 PM

"born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it)

The usual term is "cisgender", or "cis" for short.

"Cis" and "Trans" both come from Latin; the former means "the same side of" and the latter means "the other side of". If you are happy to be on the same side of the gender binary as what you were assigned when you were born then you are "cisgender"; if you are unhappy with that state of affairs (regardless of how much work you have put into changing it) then you are "transgender".

by egypturnash

3/26/2026 at 7:35:53 PM

Adding to this: If you do not want to reference the current gender, you can also use "Assigned Female at Birth" (AFAB), or "Assigned Male at Birth" (AMAB).

This is useful when clarifying terms, when you do not know the persons identity, or when discussing groups based on the factory default settings.

by JK-Swizzle

3/26/2026 at 8:43:09 PM

Yep. :)

by egypturnash

3/26/2026 at 5:45:33 PM

Now you say it like that, I did know that. Thank you.

by happymellon

3/26/2026 at 8:43:19 PM

You're welcome! <3

by egypturnash

3/26/2026 at 5:23:59 PM

> Do trans-athletes regularly out perform "born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it) athletes?

Regularly. It's the competing women who are complaining, though. They feel it is unfair to compete with men.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 5:29:11 PM

Citation? I asked because I'm curious, and Googling just gives opinion pieces and not data.

[Edit] Currently -3 but no study referenced. Do people just not like the idea of providing evidence for their position? The women I've spoken to about this article cite men being the problem, whether its sexual harassment, or other sexist attitudes. Not one felt that trans participation in their sport of choice was in their top ten complaints.

by happymellon

3/26/2026 at 5:42:59 PM

> I asked because I'm curious, and Googling just gives opinion pieces and not data.

Women complaining are voicing an opinion. Is this a good enough citation for the claim that women don't want to compete with men?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gndSDgsMnKI

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 5:56:08 PM

Considering I was asking whether there was evidence on trans-performance, sure it matters a little.

That's fine if they don't want to compete with men, but the statements were because "it's unfair". I was curious if there had been any studies on this.

by happymellon

3/26/2026 at 6:12:50 PM

> Considering I was asking whether there was evidence on trans-performance, sure it matters a little.

Well, (and I hesitate to say this because of HN guidelines, but) it was in the article, which I assumed you read. It was this assumption that made me think you wanted evidence that it is women who are complaining about competing against men.

FTFA

> Late last year Dr. Jane Thornton, the I.O.C.’s medical and scientific director and a Canadian former Olympic rower, presented the initial findings of a review of athletes who are transgender or have differences of sexual development, known as DSD, and are competing in women’s sports. That analysis, which has not been made public, stated athletes born with male sexual markers retained physical advantages, including among those that had received treatment to reduce testosterone.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 6:30:23 PM

I don't see that anywhere in the linked Yahoo article.

Does it have a link to any of the findings?

by happymellon

3/26/2026 at 6:40:29 PM

The linked article is to the nytimes. I dunno which article is the yahoo one. This story was on the nytimes, it's the one under discussion.

> Does it have a link to any of the findings?

The findings I posted where from the linked article, to the nytimes. The findings were exactly as I posted them; in brief, athletes born with male markers retain their physical advantages.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 7:09:49 PM

There’s probably a reason the analysis has not been made public.

It’s not evidence until published because it can’t be disputed.

by generj

3/26/2026 at 7:37:25 PM

I can't believe you need a study to show that a man turned woman has an advantage. It's clear men vs women have an advantage in almost every discipline... So are you simply unsure if the transition process doesn't totally ruin them and degrade their performance to that of a woman?

by throwawaytea

3/26/2026 at 7:45:20 PM

You can debate what policies are the most fair without calling trans women "men."

by greygoo222

3/26/2026 at 5:45:27 PM

This is more about logic.

For this article to be relevant a spot for the Olympics of either gender has been taken by a trans athlete.

Which by conclusion means that a trans person outperformed the other gender.

Taking part in the Olympics is a difficult endeavor, for which you must qualify first.

by LunicLynx

3/26/2026 at 7:26:12 PM

That's a misleading way to talk about "outperforming". When the US brings over 200 people to the olympics, then if cis and trans athletes have exactly the same performance and without other bias you'd expect to see 1-2 trans US olympians every year just by chance. And you'd expect them to have the same medal rates as anyone else from the US. When someone asks if there's evidence of trans athletes outperforming cis athletes, that's not what they're asking for.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 5:52:55 PM

[dead]

by cbnotfromthere

3/26/2026 at 7:23:32 PM

[flagged]

by mvdtnz

3/26/2026 at 5:45:32 PM

[flagged]

by back_to_reality

3/26/2026 at 5:58:02 PM

Well, trans women given current regulations that allowed competition with cis women, would have had to be on hormone replacement therapy for 3-5 years depending on the sport. So the data and context does matter, because the intuitive conclusion you came to isn't touching a dataset to find the rooted-in-reality conclusion. The question is 'is a male with a female hormone balance for over X period time with in a fair difference in biological function to females.'. Which is a complex question, since so many things are at play. How much does fast twitch muscle fiber is retained? How much does that even matter for the sport in question?(ballet vs sprinting) Did they go through male puberty? Where are they working out to retain their muscle mass through their 3-5 year transition period and not losing any of their originally gained muscle? What would it look like if they intentionally lost the muscle mass and then retrained it back?

I find those to be fascinating questions, the later we have little research on, currently, and it could enlighten so much more of exercise science especially for cis athletes as well.

by AnEro

3/26/2026 at 8:04:12 PM

"unfair to compete with men" is not the part of the post they wanted a citation for.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 5:51:40 PM

You do understand there is a difference between a trans-woman and a man and that you are comparing incorrect data?

by altruios

3/26/2026 at 5:55:29 PM

[flagged]

by back_to_reality

3/26/2026 at 6:24:17 PM

Hormone expression. Muscle mass. Reaction time. Weight.

A YEAR of hormone therapy. Meeting a required measured threshold of testosterone.

And that's not even the controversial stuff. A man and a trans-woman are different. hell, one has (generalizing here) boobs: come on... don't be dense/obtuse! Have you tried running fast suddenly having boobs when you did not before?!?! ...one is way easier.

by altruios

3/26/2026 at 5:47:46 PM

The problem is that someone who's transitioned is no longer a man. After undergoing surgery and hormone treatment for a long period of time, a trans athlete falls somewhere between men and women in terms of capability. They'd have no more success competing against men than naturally born women would, yet they still have advantages when competing against naturally born women.

Unfortunately, while the most equitable solution might be to create a separate category unique to trans individuals, there aren't enough trans athletes to make it feasible (yet?). It's rather sad that transitioning means a person can no longer compete in sports, but I'm not sure there's a better alternative.

by atmavatar

3/26/2026 at 7:23:29 PM

You still have your larger bone structure. Larger musculature structure and different muscle insertions. different ligament structure. different skin structure. different grip strength. Broader shoulders, narrower pelvis, different angled limbs. all of that isn't going away even if it atrophies. And you aren't going to let it atrophy because you are an athlete in training managing your dietary macros. Maybe recovery isn't as efficient lacking so much excess testosterone but you still have some.

by asdff

3/26/2026 at 6:29:23 PM

Is there actually an advantage? that's toted. but no one can ever point to real data about it... and all the data suggests the exact opposite... that for most cases: cis-women out-compete trans-women.

by altruios

3/26/2026 at 7:07:15 PM

> but no one can ever point to real data about it...

It's in the article. You may not agree with their findings, but it's there.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 7:58:36 PM

It’s not in the article.

They list their findings but no data. They effectively are just issuing an opinion. The opinion may be more considered than the rest of ours, but it’s not data.

by generj

3/26/2026 at 5:42:57 PM

Source?

by beachWholesaleS

3/26/2026 at 6:32:14 PM

From the article:

> Late last year Dr. Jane Thornton, the I.O.C.’s medical and scientific director and a Canadian former Olympic rower, presented the initial findings of a review of athletes who are transgender or have differences of sexual development, known as DSD, and are competing in women’s sports. That analysis, which has not been made public, stated athletes born with male sexual markers retained physical advantages, including among those that had received treatment to reduce testosterone.

Let's be a little science-focused, okay?

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 8:24:14 PM

That very quoted section indicates the analysis has not been made public. IMO that's very fishy and makes me question the authenticity of the source. What is Dr. Thornton hiding, exactly? Why conceal the review, methodology and data? Even if preliminary it should be released.

by ethin

3/26/2026 at 7:12:39 PM

> That analysis, which has not been made public

So much for science.

by generj

3/26/2026 at 7:18:46 PM

I would be interested to see that analysis, and it's unfortunate that it is not publicly available in some fashion. I'm mainly curious about the number of DSD-expressing vs transgender athletes they reviewed. Trans athletes in the Olympics or even competing at an Olympic level are vanishingly rare.

by brendoelfrendo

3/26/2026 at 5:47:30 PM

A source is not required, taking part in the Olympics alone, means outperforming your countries other athletes. If that doesn’t happen there wouldn’t be a reason for the article.

by LunicLynx

3/26/2026 at 6:55:23 PM

Certainly some of the high profile cases have been fairly absurd. A mid-tier male athletic transitions, and then blows the female record out of the water and gets gold. What I don't know is whether there are wider stats rather than some really big notable cases. It wouldn't surprise me, I just don't have the facts at the moment.

by everdrive

3/26/2026 at 7:14:26 PM

> A mid-tier male athletic transitions, and then blows the female record out of the water and gets gold.

Do you have an example of this happening?

by brendoelfrendo

3/26/2026 at 7:37:38 PM

Lia Thomas.

Why are all these innocent questioners asking for more evidence not familiar with the existence of the evidence they are asking for?

Considering they feel so strongly about it, they should already have seen all this.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 8:15:41 PM

If I'm reading this wikipedia page right, she got first place in one race at a national championship but was 9 seconds behind the 4:24 record.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 7:46:40 PM

Pre-transition Lia Thomas wasn’t mid-tier, but I suspect you already knew that

by lux-lux-lux

3/26/2026 at 9:08:25 PM

I was a college athlete. Trust me, this topic has been discussed ad infinitum. People were not even allowed to speak out. In addition, the NCAA meet is very competitive and Thomas pushed someone out of the meet and out of finals. Girls work their entire life for this meet just for it to end this way. It's shockingly sad on so many levels. It's not common, but it's not right that people were not even allowed to speak up. Former swimmers there have done interviews.

by nxor2

3/26/2026 at 9:45:31 PM

Every single person in that meet "pushed someone" else out of that meet. That's how competition works.

by fwip

3/26/2026 at 8:52:56 PM

Mid-tier or not is a judgement call.

Regardless, Lia went from not being in the front of the pack, to being in the front of the pack:

“By the conclusion of Thomas's swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and 554th on the men's team to fifth on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle.”

65th to 1st in one category, and 554th to 5th in another.

It is fair to say there was a significant increase in rank post-transition.

by braingravy

3/26/2026 at 9:44:33 PM

Yeah, generally you get better in your sport in the 4-5 years you're in college. She was already putting up crazy numbers as a freshman on the men's team.

From Wikipedia:

> Thomas began swimming on the men's team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that ranked within the national top 100.[4] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[4][3][13] During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1,000 free, and 1,650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[14]

To focus in on her just-out-of-highschool low ranking, and imply that it's weird that she improved by the time she graduated, is deliberately disingenuous (not on your part, but on the writer's.) She had already won 3 silver medals as a sophomore on the men's team, and was the best on her team in all but one event.

by fwip

3/26/2026 at 7:41:27 PM

"Just asking questions" but leftishly.

by appreciatorBus

3/26/2026 at 7:32:30 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard

This power lifter set regional junior records as a young man then quit the sport and didn't compete for 16 years. After transitioning she went on to win gold medals in numerous international competitions as a woman.

by mvdtnz

3/26/2026 at 7:32:34 PM

There is no standard 'trans athlete'. Every case is different.

Transition is a process. Potentially a long one without a clear point of completion. Which makes things more complicated.

by bluescrn

3/26/2026 at 5:41:08 PM

No idea on the hard data. but... We classify competitions for a reason. The competition is more interesting when the competitors are categorized into similar ability.

You can't bring your formula1 to a touring car race just because you feel like it is a touring car.

Personally I think at the top level there should be an unlimited class. within the rules of the sport anyone can enter, then at various lower prestige levels participation is limited according to some parameter.

by somat

3/26/2026 at 5:57:14 PM

One interesting example of this is the UTR system for tennis. It is agnostic in gender as wells as age, and tournaments can be held purely based on the UTR range

by mbajkowski

3/26/2026 at 5:58:01 PM

bad comparison - here is one better, not a perfect one...

You can't enter a car into a boating competition. The question here is: if you take basic precautions to make it the same class of boat - a modified car turned into a boat should be a valid entry - provided the engine speed roughly matches.

People worry about cars on water here, not knowing that doesn't exist by definition: any car in water has been modified from a car to be a boat. you may recognize that it was once a car - but that's vestigial shell stuff. the inter-workings are a propeller - not a wheel.

by altruios

3/26/2026 at 7:31:30 PM

I see your argument and has some merit but isn't persuasive enough. I would posit that its a bit too loose and that it breaks down on biological people have many more complicated systems that aren't simply re-categorized similar to your car and boat comparison.

For better or worse nor is our medical science sophisticated enough to swap out the systems to be true comparables (and I don't mean to offend anyone).

by boringg

3/26/2026 at 5:41:52 PM

> No idea on the hard data

Great thanks!

by dmbche

3/26/2026 at 5:43:23 PM

> Do trans-athletes regularly out perform "born as" (not sure the best way to phrase it) athletes?

No, both because there are very few trans athletes in competition, and because trans athletes (except trans women who have not started or are less than a year into hormone therapy) have net athletic disadvantages, when considering all factors relevant to performance in almost any real sport, compared to cisgender people of the same gender identity.

I mean, if you had a sport that isolated grip strength alone, trans women would have an advantage over cis women, but aside from rather contrived cases like that, they don't.

There's a reason the poster woman for the political movement around this in the US is a cisgender woman whose story of "unfair competition" is tying with a trans woman for fifth place behind four other cisgender women (and having to hold a sixth place trophy in photos, since there were not duplicates on hand for the same rank) in an intercollegiate swimming competition.

by dragonwriter

3/26/2026 at 8:36:38 PM

[flagged]

by cvwright

3/26/2026 at 8:48:15 PM

olympics should be entirely unisex. simple as that.

by raffael_de

3/26/2026 at 9:46:56 PM

this is very naive. go compare the Olympic men 5k times to the womens 5k times.

i was a very below average cross country runner in high school, if not flat out poor. my times were still fast by female standards.

by htx80nerd

3/26/2026 at 7:36:27 PM

I always thought the more elegant approach to all of this was to add a mixed sex league. Keep the traditions, add a novel new one, and let people consent to who they want to compete against and watch

by homeonthemtn

3/26/2026 at 7:41:12 PM

That already exists. That’s the men’s category. There are no rules forbidding women from competing in men’s categories at Olympic events.

by DrJokepu

3/26/2026 at 7:45:59 PM

Correct and it’s the same in many sports. Theres generally not “men’s golf” and “women’s golf” there’s just “golf” and “women’s golf.”

Women are not excluded from golf tournaments, but the requirements to compete (primarily how far one hits the ball) are vastly different. Thats why both play the same golf course, just from different tee boxes.

by cmiles8

3/26/2026 at 8:05:25 PM

Right but why not a specific carve out instead of a loop hole? If it's called "men's" the intention is clear.

If it's called "mixed league" the intention is clear

by homeonthemtn

3/26/2026 at 8:11:51 PM

I think they're trying to say that if there was a mixed league it would always end up being 100% men at the highest level. Like, mixed league basketball would almost certainly be just men at the highest level because of how the sport works.

by array_key_first

3/26/2026 at 7:39:38 PM

In the sports I competed in, the men's class was really an open class. (EDIT: Looking at past results, we didn't even have a "men's division". There was just a separate women's division) Anyone could compete in it. The women's classes were the only restricted classes.

There are several sports where female physiology (skeletal structure, etc) has inherent advantages over male physiology where this may not be true, though.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 5:46:02 PM

Men who weigh 100kg are also banned from participating in the 63kg weightlifting category. So what? There are physical traits that offer advantages in sports. We bucketize so that we see more interesting competitions (aka a 120kg weightlifter would completely dominate all of the smaller folks, every single time, so what's the point of competing ).

by whatever1

3/26/2026 at 7:14:54 PM

This is common sense. The only reason it didn’t happen sooner was folks being bullied to do things out of false claims of “inclusion” that resulted in deep discrimination against, mostly female, athletes.

The segregation of sports was always about sex and not gender. There are simply physical differences between across sexes that makes mixed-sex competition grossly inequitable in most sports. “Gender expression” doesn’t change that and mixing up “gender” and “sex” in sports was a trainwreck that is thankfully now being undone.

This is the right decision.

by cmiles8

3/26/2026 at 7:19:09 PM

Exactly. It's impossible to have both inclusion and fair play. We have to pick one, and as a parent of daughters who compete at fairly high levels it's more important to preserve the integrity of women's sports.

by nradov

3/26/2026 at 7:39:57 PM

Is there not an option to have inclusion at grassroots level and fair play as the level of competition gets higher?

by n4r9

3/26/2026 at 7:51:22 PM

Sure, I guess that's an option for youth sports in the prepubescent age groups. As a practical matter most youth sports leagues and schools aren't going to hassle with sex screening tests for little kids.

But once puberty hits everything changes. My teenage daughter played travel club volleyball on a pretty good team, and during practice they would occasionally run drills with the boys team. Even at that age the difference in hitting power and vertical was enormous, and those differences only grow larger with age. Men and women are literally playing different games. Beyond just fairness, forcing girls to compete against biological males becomes a safety risk due to concussions from taking a ball to the head.

by nradov

3/26/2026 at 9:29:43 PM

males competing against males are also at risk by taking a ball to the head :).

I think male female trans etc . can compete if analysed by sports branch basis. Male x female in contact sports like karate boxing taekwondo is not fair. However i think the difference is negligible in shooting, archerty, curling etc.

by dbacar

3/26/2026 at 9:24:32 PM

You believe that women are genetically more susceptible to concussions than men are?

by fwip

3/26/2026 at 9:41:08 PM

https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/2024/09/uneven-playin...

“Women tend to have thinner skulls than men, along with smaller neck muscles, which can predispose female athletes to getting a concussion,” says Sarah Menacho, MD, a neurosurgeon and neurocritical care specialist at University of Utah Health. “Data shows that women are also more likely than men to report concussion-related symptoms, and these symptoms can persist for a longer time period prior to recovery than in male athletes.”

by waterhouse

3/26/2026 at 7:50:23 PM

In my experience competing in different things, that's typical: Local organizations are free to set their own local rules, but once you cross over into events that make you eligible for higher level competition they have to strictly abide by the national level rules. I couldn't use my results from grassroots competitions to qualify for national level events, generally.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 7:23:06 PM

More important than national security and government integrity, I'm told.

by CamperBob2

3/26/2026 at 7:31:23 PM

> More important than national security and government integrity, I'm told.

Certainly seems that way for a certain subset of voters. They'd rather lose the election than let women compete against females only.

by lelanthran

3/26/2026 at 9:02:51 PM

Is it just a coincidence that all of the people pushing bills regarding women’s sports are also pushing bills to ban healthcare for and visibility of trans people?

by UncleMeat

3/26/2026 at 9:13:20 PM

The cruelty is the point.

by CamperBob2

3/26/2026 at 8:31:09 PM

> They'd rather lose the election than let women compete against females only.

Fascinating political analysis. It's weird how a small group of people are deeply driven by identity politics above literally anything else, especially when those people typically aren't even slightly affected (and generally have never watched a single women's event in their life).

I sometimes wonder if people like you scream at politicians because of the introduction of the pitch clock in baseball, too? Do you waste this much energy on the rulebooks other sports come up with? Or just like, when you think it's icky sex stuff?

by jmye

3/26/2026 at 9:00:54 PM

If you can find me some politicians, I would gladly yell at them that the DH and the pitch clock are unnatural and immoral.

by huhkerrf

3/26/2026 at 8:05:27 PM

So, where are the scores and scores of trans athletes dominating women's sports? If this is the sort of problem all the people crowing about it think it to be, we should have women with poorly fitting athletic gear and facial hair all over the place taking golds from ciswomen. We don't.

Like this is literally just fucking with transpeople for nothing and I am wide open for correction on this if anybody can find an actual incident of something of note happening, but until then, it's just weird reactionaries screaming into the void as far as I'm concerned, and the outcomes will be largely the same: more invasive procedures for ciswomen to endure, and excluded athletes who did nothing wrong apart from be who they are.

by ToucanLoucan

3/26/2026 at 8:18:31 PM

This is a matter of principle, fair play, and safety. Whether it's a tiny number or "scores and scores" is irrelevant.

If you're looking for specific incidents then start with this site. I can't vouch for it being completely accurate but you can use it as a starting point for further research to educate yourself about the issue.

https://www.shewon.org/

by nradov

3/26/2026 at 9:23:39 PM

FYI - shewon is entirely self reported and does no verification. It includes events such as local town fair bean bag throwing competitions.

It also classifies a trans person winning anything as ~3 losses since "a non-trans person may have shifted the entire bracket" moving 2nd -> 1st, 3rd -> 2nd etc... The entire site is hypebole and should not be used as a serious reference lol.

by pfych

3/26/2026 at 8:29:25 PM

> This is a matter of principle, fair play, and safety. Whether it's a tiny number or "scores and scores" is irrelevant.

What if it's 0?

> If you're looking for specific incidents then start with this site.

A deeply unbiased source, I'm sure.

Anyway I'd love to but all their archive links are the same. Looks like someone wrote a for loop incorrectly. But to be blunt, this is the exact same sort of nonsense as VAERS and deserves exactly the same dismissal: Compiled data assembled from the public with no verification, by people with no credentials, with a clear axe to grind.

Edit: Also, a SHIT LOAD of these are for second/third/whatever place, not even for wins. If reality backed the assertions made, transwomen should be DESTROYING women in sports.

There actually does have to be a lot of them, frankly, because otherwise it is just a nothingburger. Just a burger with a whole lot of nothing.

by ToucanLoucan

3/26/2026 at 9:26:55 PM

Cmon guy, you can't ask for a source and then dismiss the one provided without critically examining it.

You're complaining that it's using publicly available data? Would you rather private anecdotes?

> Also, a SHIT LOAD of these are for second/third/whatever place, not even for wins.

Not sure why this is relevant - is being cheated out of second place less of a misdeed than being cheated out of first?

by youarentrightjr

3/26/2026 at 9:30:09 PM

Sorry part of my reply got cut off.

> What if it's 0?

It's not 0, and anyone engaging honestly knows it.

To make another vaccine analogy: claiming it's a small number and therefore it doesn't matter is identical to the people who said Covid vaccines weren't important because the disease didn't wipe out more than x% of the population.

In fact, it's because of the vaccines that this is the case.

And it's because of resistance to men in women's sports that the problem is not larger.

by youarentrightjr

3/26/2026 at 8:00:08 PM

Many people like to focus on the purely physical attributes, but there's a clear distinction even in realms like chess.

The highest ranked female chess player is right around #55 globally, wherein the top 50 all are dominated by men.

Some of this may have to do with men having more interest/higher propensity of starting young which is where most grandmasters begin their journey, but still an interesting thing to consider nonetheless.

by SunshineTheCat

3/26/2026 at 8:06:33 PM

It's largely because chess has historically been a boys-club type activity. Women were actively discouraged, if not barred, from playing on grounds of misogyny. So, even today, there's very little women taking it seriously.

Of course, we all know there's no difference in the level of intellect or strategy between men and women.

by array_key_first

3/26/2026 at 8:28:52 PM

> Of course, we all know there's no difference in the level of intellect or strategy between men and women.

Do we?

I thought it was commonly accepted that the average and median are the same but that men have more outliers on both sides.

by ahtihn

3/26/2026 at 8:58:54 PM

That’s the greater variability theory. The male median is also higher so when you combine the two the long tail to the right will be dominated by males, so will the long tail on the left but to a lesser extent.

Many IQ tests have been designed to minimize the difference between males and females, primarily by reducing g-loading. Males pull ahead after puberty, prior to this they have an IQ disadvantage. So you have to take these factors into account when trying to make a fair and proper assessment.

by cjbgkagh

3/26/2026 at 8:08:24 PM

Males have better spatial abilities compared to females. Most probably as a evolutionary trait required for hunting.

by mlboss

3/26/2026 at 9:26:47 PM

I know of one person who was born physically a woman, but has XY chromosomes. It is only due to modern medicine that we know that there is anything "unusual" with her gender. Otherwise, she is physically a woman with no observable clues to her condition.

(IE, in the past, she would have been infertile, and probably died young due to her situation.)

I'm not comfortable with saying that people like her need to compete with men.

by gwbas1c

3/26/2026 at 7:50:37 PM

What would do about someone like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santhi_Soundarajan

by albertgoeswoof

3/26/2026 at 7:53:27 PM

That athlete was excluded from the women's competition on the basis of having male physiological advantage. Exactly what the Olympics are now doing.

by svzn

3/26/2026 at 8:31:58 PM

Androgen insensitivity syndrome means that her cells do not react to testosterone. What male advantage is there if her cells don't react to testosterone?

by peaseagee

3/26/2026 at 8:46:40 PM

Soundarajan's androgen insensitivity was reported as being partial (i.e. PAIS, and not CAIS), which implies some degree of testosterone-driven masculinization.

by fuge_temb

3/26/2026 at 7:35:16 PM

If you segregate by sex alone then trans men get a big advantage.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 8:03:13 PM

The rulings do not mean they now segregate by sex alone. Someone who was AFAB and does not have an SRY gene would was taking HRT would not qualify for the female division due to the HRT.

A trans man who was not taking HRT could compete, though.

The key distinction is that gender identity is not what's being tested.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 7:37:28 PM

Because they're taking testosterone?

Wouldn't they be barred based on using banned substances?

by cj

3/26/2026 at 7:56:39 PM

They're not all taking banned substances. Case in point, Hergie Bacyadan and Elis Lundholm competed in the last Summer and Winter Olympics respectively.

by svzn

3/26/2026 at 8:50:06 PM

Both Hergie Bacyadan and Elis Lundholm has not undergone any hormone replacement therapy or surgery, and competes in the women's divisions. Their status as trans men has nothing to do with their eligibility to participate.

This would be like if two trans, who has not undergone any hormone replacement therapy or surgery, would compete in men's divisions.

by belorn

3/26/2026 at 7:40:03 PM

I thought exactly the same thing until I had a politically agnostic fencing judge sit down and explain over the course of an hour and a half all of the steps national and international regulating organizations for that sport had taken to avoid issues with unfair competition. Whether similar field-leveling safeguards could be baked into the rules for other sports is left as an exercise, but this particular instance suggests there's more nuance here than your comment suggests.

by forgetfreeman

3/26/2026 at 8:47:42 PM

You're assuming that people arguing for bans on trans athletes are making good faith arguments about competition in sports. You shouldn't.

Here in the US a significant part of antipathy towards trans people is the deeply held belief that being trans in public is a kind of sex abuse to the public. If you listen to what much of the debate has turned into here, it has little to do with competition, and far more with the obsession over what genitals people have in locker rooms and bathrooms.

At the end of the day the number of trans athletes is so vanishingly small it's not worth caring about the impacts on competition, when the debate itself is another framing of the conservative desire to make being trans illegal.

by duped

3/26/2026 at 8:06:03 PM

Depends on the time of the transition. So those who transitioned before puberty are disadvantaged

by croes

3/26/2026 at 7:32:36 PM

Walk me through how you think this is going to be enforced? Athletes will need to start dropping their pants? Disgusting invasion of privacy.

by r053bud

3/26/2026 at 7:36:50 PM

The article addresses that. Given all the testing already, this is a trivial addition:

“Under the new policy eligibility will be determined by a one-time gene test, according to the I.O.C. The test, which is already being used in track and field, requires screening via saliva, a cheek swab or a blood sample.“

by cmiles8

3/26/2026 at 7:50:29 PM

[dead]

by ToucanLoucan

3/26/2026 at 7:49:09 PM

You think Olympic athletes have any expectation of privacy around drug testing already? They have to register their every move and piss while being visible on demand.

by hokkos

3/26/2026 at 7:36:40 PM

Well the article says a cheek swab or blood test.

by Dylan16807

3/26/2026 at 7:34:16 PM

You think the only way to medically test for male vs female is to visually id genitals?

by throwawaytea

3/26/2026 at 7:41:40 PM

The article already covered it: It's minimally invasive (cheek swab) testing typically for the SRY gene - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determining_region_Y_prote...

This is less invasive than all of the other doping tests that athletes already go through, which require blood draws.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 7:45:33 PM

Doesn’t really work though - and given athletes are on the edge of performance there’s probably more people that fall in between than you might expect

From the Wikipedia article:

While the presence or absence of SRY has generally determined whether or not testis development occurs, it has been suggested that there are other factors that affect the functionality of SRY.[25] Therefore, there are individuals who have the SRY gene, but still develop as females, either because the gene itself is defective or mutated, or because one of the contributing factors is defective.[26] This can happen in individuals exhibiting a XY, XXY, or XX SRY-positive[27] karyotype[better source needed] Additionally, other sex determining systems that rely on SRY beyond XY are the processes that come after SRY is present or absent in the development of an embryo. In a normal system, if SRY is present for XY, SRY will activate the medulla to develop gonads into testes. Testosterone will then be produced and initiate the development of other male sexual characteristics. Comparably, if SRY is not present for XX, there will be a lack of the SRY based on no Y chromosome. The lack of SRY will allow the cortex of embryonic gonads to develop into ovaries, which will then produce estrogen, and lead to the development of other female sexual characteristics.[28]

by albertgoeswoof

3/26/2026 at 7:59:23 PM

The IOC included exceptions for certain DSDs.

Please read the linked articles first before jumping to Wikipedia to try to counter them. The decision is more nuanced than you assume

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 7:54:24 PM

The Yahoo article linked says that exceptions will be made for people with conditions like that:

“Athletes diagnosed with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) ‘or other rare differences/disorders in sex development (DSDs), who do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone’ may still be allowed to participate in the women’s category.”

by Philadelphia

3/26/2026 at 8:01:24 PM

The test is used for initial screening only.

Presence of SRY in an athlete registered as female means further tests must be undertaken, with permission of the athlete, to determine eligibility.

Absence of SRY means the screening is passed and the athlete is eligible to compete.

by svzn

3/26/2026 at 7:57:59 PM

In a word: so? Intersex people exist, you have to draw the line somewhere, the presence of SRY seems as good as any.

by decimalenough

3/26/2026 at 7:40:03 PM

Transition changes biology. We don't yet have the technology to fully reverse the effects of male puberty, so there can be reasonable debate about trans women who transitioned after puberty, but early transitioners have no meaningful advantage. Their bodies, in an athletic context, are female.

This is also true for many cisgender intersex women with XY chromosomes. Someone with androgen insensitivity can have XY chromosomes, yet be capable of giving birth. Drawing the line at having a Y chromosome makes no sense.

by greygoo222

3/26/2026 at 9:16:14 PM

> Someone with androgen insensitivity can have XY chromosomes, yet be capable of giving birth

People with androgen insensitivity syndrom (AIS) have XY chromosomes but no uterus. So, no, they cannot give birth.

by slibhb

3/26/2026 at 9:36:44 PM

People with a diagnosis for that syndrome are specifically allowed by the new rules

by nomdep

3/26/2026 at 7:43:42 PM

> Their bodies, in an athletic context, are female.

I'm sorry, but this is not true. "Puberty blockers" do not complete suppress the effects of male genetics. They only attempt to block certain hormonal effects.

It is not possible to completely block the effects of having male genes by simple hormone modulation.

> Someone with androgen insensitivity can have XY chromosomes, yet be capable of giving birth

We do not determine eligibility for sports classes based on ability to give birth for good reason. It's not a proxy for the genetic athletic differences being addressed by these classes.

Individuals with androgen insensitivity typically cannot give birth. This an extremely rare possibility, not a typical feature of the condition.

by Aurornis

3/26/2026 at 9:14:52 PM

The only reason is topic is even on the table is the sheer amount of political grifters riding the trans “panic” for many years, trying to rile up a mob. This is a non issue, and online trans investigators and people like jk Rowling so far managed to only hurt multiple (assigned at birth) women in sports, whos looks don’t conform with traditional femininity.

by blks

3/26/2026 at 9:31:39 PM

Trans panic is doubly popular on the right because it's a wedge issue within the left, it divided modern feminism into two camps

by walthamstow

3/26/2026 at 9:36:23 PM

And unfortunately, you see even in this community people falling into this blatant transphobia. Regardless of my opinions on this, there's still no excuse to misgender anyone.

I wish I could say I was surprised at this point but I've been dissiluioned of this place for a good while now. Watch those comments remain up hut the next story putting Elon in a negative light is flagged and pre-emptively moderated.

by johnnyanmac

3/26/2026 at 5:14:14 PM

I wonder if anyone has measured the speed in which reality is codified into law or regulation. Women have been fighting against males in female sports for many, many years. Why did it take so long for something so obvious to be acted upon?

by xvxvx

3/26/2026 at 5:36:07 PM

To educate others reading this, it's far from "obvious" how to classify gender in sports. Checking if they have the right "parts" physically doesn't do it. Checking for hormone levels doesn't do it. Even checking for Y chromosomes doesn't do it.

In my opinion the way forward is to stop trying to find arbitrary ways to define gender, and just start making competition classes based on whatever factors are relevant to the event. E.g. a women with high testosterone? They can compete with men or women with the same testosterone bracket. This would also let men with low-T compete fairly rather then be excluded from the games.

It's also relevant at what point other genetic changes are "unfair." There are absolutely genetic traits that give people HUGE advantages in various competitions. Just like the gender-related properties, these are natural and yet result in unfair competitions.

by tensor

3/26/2026 at 5:45:49 PM

If you have a Y chromosome your sex is male. It’s not a matter of opinion. Wikipedia isn’t exactly a bastion of conservatism and this is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_sex-determination_system

by briandw

3/26/2026 at 6:42:17 PM

If you pay attention, your source has an asterisk of “typically” and “usually”, aswell as a distinction between phenotype and karyotype traits. While it is true that the majority of people with a Y chromosome are male, there are many people with Y chromosomes you’d call female because of their phenotype (which is what society primarily cares about), among other cicumstances.

by chrisnight

3/26/2026 at 6:56:31 PM

I specifically said sex. Gender is mostly undefined. If you say that gender is the societal presentation as male or female, but you can’t define male from female then what are you defining? Its the “trans women are women” contradiction.

by briandw

3/26/2026 at 7:21:27 PM

Since you trust Wikipedia over us:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome

by debugnik

3/26/2026 at 8:14:17 PM

For Swyer syndrome, A 2017 study estimated that the incidence of Swyer syndrome is approximately 1 in 100,000 females. Fewer than 100 cases have been reported as of 2018.

For both the genetic disorders, they would have to be beneficial or at least not an disadvantage, for elite sport activity in order to be an issue for misclassification. For a sex-determination system, they could simply add an exception for Swyer syndrome and postpone the decision until such individual presented themselves at an Olympic competition.

by belorn

3/26/2026 at 5:41:53 PM

The problem with your proposed 'fuzzy divisions' is that they're not compatible with the zeitgeist of 'seeing the best compete', and 'drug-free' sports, as there's no reason to disallow performance-enhancing-drugs if we're already splitting into divisions.

by nickff

3/26/2026 at 5:49:43 PM

Actually, you bring up an excelling additional argument for the sort of bracketing I proposed. It also works for drugs!

There is significant grey area wrt to "doping" too in the sense that a performance enhancing drug may express as a larger than normal amount of a naturally occurring substance. So did the person dope, or is that their natural genetics? In my scheme, WHO CARES!

Beyond that, I suppose there is the usual argument against more serious and non-natural forms of doping that it is physically detrimental to the competitors and by allowing it you are encouraging or pressuring people to essentially harm themselves.

Still, competition classes could be helpful in some of the doping grey areas.

by tensor

3/26/2026 at 5:40:34 PM

Why is checking for a Y chromosome not sufficient? This does not seem to me like an arbitrary definition. What am I missing?

by putzdown

3/26/2026 at 5:42:42 PM

It's in fact possible to develop a female body with XY chromosomes:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6586948/

Also warning that article has images that may be inappropriate in a public setting. I didn't realize when I linked it.

by tensor

3/26/2026 at 5:51:00 PM

Thank you. But the Y test still seems sufficient. Every criterion will have false positives and negatives. With the Y test the false negative (you present as a woman but have a Y chromosome) is rare and the vast majority of cases are handled well. If you have this condition you must compete against men (given the Y chromosome test rule) or not compete. If you’re dying to be in the Olympics as a woman but have the Y chromosome, you’re just out of luck. Not everyone can be a concert pianist either. No rule makes things wonderful for 100% of humans. The Y test gets very close.

by putzdown

3/26/2026 at 9:40:36 PM

But that's a contradiction, no? We're saving women from other women and barring trans people also (ones we consider men) because of a perceived risk that I don't see evidence for (i.e. people choosing to compete as women on a malicious basis or with an 'innate advantage' that makes it dangerous - we've had a long time of running these sports without this sort of regulation, and it seems to be a political choice more than a reaction to evidence that women are being outcompeted by trans people). This is also assuming that having a y chromosome makes it fair for people with a y chromosome to compete against one another, but if you compare people's physiology these people who present as women often have low/no testosterone. Separating on the line of testosterone picks up a lot of female athletes (especially at the olympic level) that are not trans, and overall I just see this hurting women without evidence that it's actually a response to harm. In any case, trans people and gender non conforming women become the victims of this in the public sphere. It just seems very misguided.

by etherus

3/26/2026 at 5:59:38 PM

There will always be outliers.

by shrx

3/26/2026 at 7:36:09 PM

High level sports consists entirely of outliers. That’s kind of the point of the olympics. This newest rule is nothing more than a misogynist rule to turn the women’s division into the “no more than statistically average” division.

by hananova

3/26/2026 at 8:57:10 PM

Almost every gold medal winner in the past games would not have been affected by this new rule, so that's a biiit hyperbolic. Those athletes are still far outside the normal performance of women (or men, for that matter).

by brainwad

3/26/2026 at 8:22:35 PM

[flagged]

by fretboard

3/26/2026 at 5:38:26 PM

>checking for Y chromosomes doesn't do it

Lol why does this not do it?

by VirusNewbie

3/26/2026 at 5:40:27 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...

Among others

by joshuahaglund

3/26/2026 at 5:49:16 PM

I am going to try to keep my response apolitical to try to avoid fanning a culture war. That Wiki is the exact reason we are in this situation because we are bringing up points for 1 in 20000 or 0.005% of the population. Any system designed around 0.005% edge cases is going to be so complex that it is functionally impossible to do in practice. That is why one side says the solution is "obvious" because we have a simple rule that covers 99.9% of cases and the other 0.1% is unfortunately effectively barred from high level competition. Note, high level competition already bars 99.9% of people. Even though the opposing side is correct in pointing out these edge cases, it does nothing to advance an actual solution.

by hervature

3/26/2026 at 5:54:32 PM

There are statistically around 15 women AFAB with XY chromosomes in the NCAA by those numbers (assuming no correlation between Swyer syndrome and athletic performance).

There are currently around 10 openly transgender women in the NCAA.

Small numbers either way.

by saalweachter

3/26/2026 at 9:01:43 PM

Sure, it covers 99.9% of cases, but top elite athletes are the genetic exceptions, they are the genetic freaks. They are the top 0.0001%. You don't get to compete at the most elite levels without your body being exceptionally gifted and almost specifically shaped for the relevant sport, which inevitably means funky genetic traits and disorders, higher testosterone levels etc.

I mean the word freak in the most loving and caring way possible, mind you.

What does fairness mean in that context?

by logravia

3/26/2026 at 5:56:58 PM

Except I proposed a solution, which you ignored (I'm assuming here that I'm your "opposing side".)

Also, there are a significant number of these sorts of arguments in high-level sports, probably precisely because these "0.1%" cases are exactly the ones that result in exceptional ability relative to norms. It's also curious that there is such obsession about naturally occurring genetic outliers with respect to females or gender but absolute silence about naturally occurring genetic outliers among men unrelated to gender. And surprise surprise the top athletes often have such outlier genetics!

If you're drawing a distinction between natural genetic difference related to only gender and no other factors then sadly it's exactly a culture war, not a war based in science or fairness.

by tensor

3/26/2026 at 5:42:18 PM

Because in a specific minority of the population it disagrees with the gender assigned at birth for obvious reasons. There are plenty of resources you could read on intersex instead of lol at something you don’t understand

by manwe150

3/26/2026 at 5:56:02 PM

[dead]

by cbnotfromthere

3/26/2026 at 5:54:45 PM

Total nonsense. Sports are separated by sex, not gender. Sex is a biological reality, whereas gender is made up nonsense hiding behind the fact that many people equate the word 'sex' to sexual intercourse. That allowed 'gender' to flourish and confuse people.

'Gender' in it's modern form, was coined by John Money, the psychologist/sexologist responsible for the genital mutilation of many children, and the suicide of at least one of them due to his involvement of sexualized behavior during 'treatment'.

by xvxvx