The end result is that of a fully formed male.
I doubt it. Ruined the entire post? Every single point, even the ones independent of the others? Really now, what a strange thing to declare!
Correct, I was in error with what I wrote. I intended to say that black athletes had physical aspects which benefit them, such as lower-extremity bone length. But I summarized that completely incorrectly, thank you for correcting that. However, the point still stands: some races/ethnicities/people of certain national origins may have physical differences which may give advantages to them in athletics.
And while blacks may be not significantly a different height than whites, if one were to imply that all groups of all ethnicities or national origins are the same height, well, that would be silly and ignorant. See for example page 15 with respect to Hispanics. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf And I need not pull up sources on the height differences of Chinese nationals versus United States nationals. Smaller size and smaller bones and lower mass by definition give advantages in some sports such as gymnastics. And disadvantages in other sports. Seen any sprinting medalists under 5 feet lately? To deny they don’t is easily refuted by simply looking at the medalists in the Olympics over the last hundred years or so.
Well, it’s not your place to tell other posters what they can and cannot post, especially as you’re not Staff or a Moderator, but (shrug). Now let’s read your contributions to the topic at hand.
Complete AIS gives a fully formed male? I guess if you call a person with breasts and without male external sex organs fully formed…?
See here - it even has photographs. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia
Generally what we think of as the Men’s league or competition is really more like an Open competition. In other words, anyone can compete in the NBA or the UFC or the PGA tour. There’s nothing restricting participation to men, except that in the vast majority of cases women aren’t physically able to compete on the same level. Hence a separate competition limited to women.
So no one is barring Fallon Fox from competing in general. The question is whether she qualifies for the special competitions created specifically for women.
I agree. My position is in general the IOC requirements ought to serve as a good guide for including T/I women with XX women. But I admit this is by no means a cut and dried issue.
Hardly. Saying something so absurd makes you sound like an idiot, which will certainly lead many to brush off any legitimate concerns you raise.
Do you have a cite for that? Specifically something that references Black people having such advantages, and not a subset like Black Athletes, or a narrowly defined genetic group like African-Americans with Western African lineage. I say that because even if Black athletes have x trait that gives them an edge, it doesn’t mean they have said trait because they are Black; thus claiming their Blackness gives them an unfair advantages they way being a man playing against women would is foolish at best.
What you mean to say is that some groups on average may have characteristics would give them advantages. Even so, sports are not in the business of eliminating any innate advantages people have as a result of genes. Professional leagues exist by and large as a means of giving a select few the means to exhibit those genetic advantages so long as the participants don’t violate the rules of the game.
It would, but you are the only one discussing height, or making this poor analogy.
Again, why are you fixated on averages when were are talking about a very small group of people on one tail end of the bell curve? Do you honestly think the average Chinese person has a better chance to become an Olympian than an American just because they might be smaller on average? Obviously, it is far more complicated than that.
What exactly do you think you are demonstrating here? That a 4-foot man cannot be the fastest man in the world? What does that have to do with a transperson fighting women?
Clearly that was not a directive; just a friendly suggestion that you are making a bad case for your cause with all the inaccurate distracting claims.
That seems unlikely. I’d hope that intelligent and reasonable people can see that the points are severable.
Since I admitted I was wrong, corrected my claim and provided a cite to reference black athletes…I don’t know what you want. If someone else wants to discuss, I will be happy to do so.
Yes.
I’ve already admitted I was incorrect and you were correct, and you’re still harping on the original mistake. One might wonder why?
If you say so.
Having admitted I used the wrong words and made a mistake, resulting in a generalization I shouldn’t have, I’m not continuing this line of discussion. While we do try to be accurate in what we post, this isn’t a peer-reviewed journal and people will make mistakes. One can either treat everything else I posted in my holistic exposition on the subject as fruit of the poison tree, or not. I will be happy to discuss the subject with other Dopers. I do actually have some first-hand and academic research experience on this overall subject.
Because it hardly seemed like you are doing that given your equivocating in your last post. That said, I will take you at your word, and appreciate you admitting your mistake.
As far as the UFC thing is concerned, I think it’s probably most prudent to address things like this on a case by case basis. Given that Fox is 37 years old, only has 2 professional fights against weak competition, and seems to have only started competing/training after her transition, I think it’s safe to say whatever advantages she had being born a man was offset by the above.
Additionally, let’s not forget how UFC started. UFC 1 was won by Royce Gracie, a man who fought multiple opponents in one nights; some of whom outweighed him by over 50 pounds. The sport has always stressed skill above pure physical gifts, so as long as Fox can find women to fight her, I don’t think this should be much of an issue.
No, it’s not. XY females with full AIS have the external genitalia and secondary sexual characteristics of XX females. Prior to chromosomal typing there was usually nothing to distinguish them from normal women unless for some reason you opened them up and found they had no uterus, cervix, or fallopian tubes (and apparently in a few rare such individuals even those may be present in some form). In fact, those with complete AIS look more feminine than normal XX women as they do not react to testosterone at all. They are buxom, without “unwanted facial hair” us normal gals despair of, and usually with flawless skin.
Here’s the basic wiki on it, with the address broken because the article has pictures with full nudity and is pretty explicit regarding anatomy: http: // en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
ETA: Seems Una might have ninja’d me on the article
Maybe I missed something but is Fallon Fox an example of CAIS or are you posting exceptions to the rule which I already talked about.