Two Philosophers, Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty, answer student’s question about PostModern insanity on college campuses.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=lKmlve0Nnpk&feature=share8

Since white lady Rachel Dolezal got cancelled for IDing as black, we have discovered humans are 99.9% genetically identical, despite their superficial ‘differences’.

“All human beings are 99.9 percent identical in their genetic makeup. Differences in the remaining 0.1 percent hold important clues about the causes of diseases.” NIH Human Genome Project

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Genetics-vs-Genomics

“Dolezal was president of the NAACP chapter in Spokane, Washington, from 2014 until June 2015, when she resigned in the midst of controversy over her racial identity. She was the subject of public scrutiny when her parents publicly stated that she was pretending to be black but was actually white. The statement by Dolezal's parents followed Dolezal's reports to police and local news media that she had been the victim of race-related hate crimes;[11][12][13] a police investigation did not find support for her allegations.[14] Dolezal had also claimed on an application form to be mixed-race and had falsely claimed that an African-American man was her father and that her brother was her son. In the aftermath of the controversy, Dolezal was dismissed from her position as an instructor in Africana studies at Eastern Washington University and was removed from her post as chair of the Police Ombudsman Commission in Spokane over "a pattern of misconduct".[15] In 2015, Dolezal acknowledged that she was "born white to white parents," but maintained that she self-identified as black.

The Dolezal controversy fuelled a national debate in the United States about racial identity. Dolezal's critics stated that she committed cultural appropriation and fraud; Dolezal asserted that her self-identification is genuine. In 2017, Dolezal released a memoir on her racial identity entitled In Full Color: Finding My Place in a Black and White World.”

So she was cancelled over a 1/10th of 1% genetic difference between her and a black person.

Yet a biological man with 100% XY chromosomes is free to compete against biological women with 100% XX chromosomes, in sports as long as he says,”I identify as a woman.”

How is that fair?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna14928

16 teammates of Trans swimmer say it isn’t, but that doesn’t seem to matter.

    Controversial surf magnate Fluke McFinn once again dives into pork-choppy waters as he sits down to be interviewed by K-ORCA TV's even more controversial senior correspondent, Marty 'Blubber-butt' McWhale, on the issue of "...if we stay off your land, will you stay out of our oceans?!"

I'm going to repsond to this irrational nonsense with reason -- which is an impossible task -- so here goes.

"Race" is a arbitrary social construct.

Biological sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation are distinct and different things that are innate to an indivdual, and exist within a person's psyche or brain.

Simple thought experiment: If you grew up on a desert island without people, you would know what sex you were, but you would have no idea what "race" you were, or if your "race" was supposed to be "superior" or "inferior" (There are many stories of immigrants from African countries who had no idea of what North American racism was -- and found out the hard way really quick).



Let's go back a couple of thousand years to ancient Roman society.

Our modern concept of skin colour racism didn't exist.

Sure, there was lots of nationalism, ethnocentrism, etc., but our modern concept of (A) racial superiority based on "white" supremacy and (B) the "one drop" hypodescent sub-Saharan African rule born out of the monetisation and breeding of black Africans as slaves -- did not exist.


A quick web search will show you pictures of people who were classified as "black" only in name. Further searching will give you examples of religious "curses" and other myths to justify white supremacy. Being "black" was regarded as so odious that no "sane" person would reveal or admit they were partially black, and as mentioned, there are plenty of examples of the opposite.


Nevertheless, there were many cases of people just saying they were "black," "Negro," "Coloured" or whatever when they were not -- usually to get around "misegenation" laws. Once such an "admission" was made, word would get around, and you would be quickly excluded from "white" society.


I frankly don't care what "race" someone says they are as it's just made up anyway. I personally had two female friends who grew up in predominately black urban or African societies, spoke AAVE English, only dated black men, and so on. Are they actually "white?" Where their wombs "tainted" (nother old myth)? Who decides this? Who would "want" to be black? Gasp!


So, if you want to get ticked off by someone saying who and what they are beyond your control, that's your problem.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2023 12:58PM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm going to repsond to this irrational nonsense
> with reason -- which is an impossible task -- so
> here goes.
>
> "Race" is a arbitrary social construct.

Clearly there are genetic differences between people whose most recent ancestors came from different continents. It’s easy for anyone to distinguish between native Africans, Europeans, Asians and Australians. What differentiates them isn’t just superficial appearance of skin color, eye color, or hair type, it’s much deeper, genetically. Africans have very little to no trace of Neanderthal DNA. While non-Africans have 2% on average Neanderthal DNA and Asians/Melanesians/Australian Aborigines have an additional 3% on average Denisovan DNA. That we are still 99.9% genetically identical means that both Neanderthals and Denisovans were very closely related to us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That is far from arbitrary and not just a ‘social construct’. It’s a scientific testable fact.

> Biological sex, gender identity, and sexual
> orientation are distinct and different things that
> are innate to an indivdual, and exist within a
> person's psyche or brain.

Except Men don’t magically grow a leg on their XY chromosomes when they start identifying as female. Your genetic makeup doesn’t exist in you psyche or brain.

> Simple thought experiment: If you grew up on a
> desert island without people, you would know what
> sex you were, but you would have no idea what
> "race" you were, or if your "race" was supposed to
> be "superior" or "inferior" (There are many
> stories of immigrants from African countries who
> had no idea of what North American racism was --
> and found out the hard way really quick).
>
Right. You’d have nothing to compare it to and you’d have no concept of race, but if you ran a DNA test, they’d tell you exactly where your ancestors came from, including the Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestors, if you had any.
>
> Let's go back a couple of thousand years to
> ancient Roman society.
>
> Our modern concept of skin colour racism didn't
> exist.
>
> Sure, there was lots of nationalism,
> ethnocentrism, etc., but our modern concept of (A)
> racial superiority based on "white" supremacy and
> (B) the "one drop" hypodescent sub-Saharan African
> rule born out of the monetisation and breeding of
> black Africans as slaves -- did not exist.
>
>
> A quick web search will show you pictures of
> people who were classified as "black" only in
> name. Further searching will give you examples of
> religious "curses" and other myths to justify
> white supremacy. Being "black" was regarded as so
> odious that no "sane" person would reveal or admit
> they were partially black, and as mentioned, there
> are plenty of examples of the opposite.
>
>
> Nevertheless, there were many cases of people just
> saying they were "black," "Negro," "Coloured" or
> whatever when they were not -- usually to get
> around "misegenation" laws. Once such an
> "admission" was made, word would get around, and
> you would be quickly excluded from "white"
> society.
>
>
> I frankly don't care what "race" someone says they
> are as it's just made up anyway. I personally had
> two female friends who grew up in predominately
> black urban or African societies, spoke AAVE
> English, only dated black men, and so on. Are
> they actually "white?" Where their wombs
> "tainted" (nother old myth)? Who decides this?
> Who would "want" to be black? Gasp!
>
>
> So, if you want to get ticked off by someone
> saying who and what they are beyond your control,
> that's your problem.

I’m not ticked off. I’m saying if it’s acceptable to identify as female when you have 100% XY Chromosomes then it should be ok to identify as African when we are all 99.9% genetically identical.

schrodingerscat Wrote:

> Your genetic makeup doesn’t exist in you
> psyche or brain.

But your gender does.


Your sexual identity, behaviour, etc is in your brain, not your parts.

You don't have to look at your parts to know who you are, and you know this.

If you are a cisgendered hetero male, the thing that makes you sexually excited about fertile females is in your brain.

What's in your pants is just peripheral hardware.

I've mentioned before how some doctors tried to do that in several famous experiments and it failed.

Cultural approriation is not the same as transsexuality/transgenderism.

Take the Karl May fans in Germany who live and dress as Native Americans like Star Trek fans living as Vulcans or Klingons. That's an example of cutural appropriation.

Having a brain that developed like that of the opposite biological sex is totally different.

It is a naturally occuring process in human development and not something that people just "make up" or "pretend."

I've told you before that all you have to is read any book on human development and you'll find out that *all* human foetuses begin as female and that *some* of them will be exposed to enough male hormones in utero to *develop* as male, and also that this isn't a binary either/or process, and some will be partial -- either with ambigous genitalia, or in the brain.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2023 04:10PM by anybody.

Chromosome pair 23 being either XY or XX in 99.999% of the human population is not a social construct.

Can you provide proof of that figure?

1.The quoted number is not cirrect.

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

scroll down to the enclosed table

XO (Turner Syndrome) is 0.04%
XXX is 0.1%
XYY is 0.0142%

so clearly 99.999% are not XX or XY

2. Sexual preference and gender identity are not entirely dependent on sex chromosomes. Most gay men are XY, most lesbians are XX, so sex chromosomes are not the predominant factor. As you noted, there are observable brain differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33658542/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7560933/

There are also differences related to transgenderism

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-17352-8

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180524112351.htm

So the issue is much more complex than XX/XY genotype.

Cafeteria Mormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chromosome pair 23 being either XY or XX in
> 99.999% of the human population is not a social
> construct.

Chromosomes aren't brain structure.

The cult/religion of transgederism puts LDS Inc. to shame.

Do you have statistics to back that up? They can be false, like your ones above.

Cafeteria Mormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cult/religion of transgederism puts LDS Inc.
> to shame.

Please explain how "transgender" is a cult.

Evidence?

Transgender people have been around for a long time, doing their thing out of the spotlight.

I think the cult you mean is the one that decided to make them victims of a culture war. (Hint: it's not the cult you were thinking.)

I don't follow this. You seem to be making the point that having 99.9% genetic similarity makes differences insignificant. Then you link an article about how significant and different we can be from the .1% difference.

None of this addresses cultural history, mental states and mental interpretation of our nurture and nature experiences. Mental institutions are full of people who think they are something else, and yet in every day life, some of the same tendencies seem reasonable.

Remember the crap Elizabeth Warren got for claiming she might have Native American ancestors? I view Dolezal's claims somewhat related in weird way. You don't get to claim to be part of the tribe when you didn't pay the dues.

I have a relative who loved to pretend he was handicapped because of the results of alcoholism and rejection. He managed to compete for and obtain for special needs awards and resources. He somehow convinced everyone how he "overcame" all kinds of hardships that were self imposed. This wasn't fair to actual special needs people in my view.

So, my point is, all this is very fuzzy and subjective. You can go on and on about the 99.9% thing but other factors seem to be driving our views as we learn more.

Rachel said that people would "assume" she was mixed-race because she had black children, and just went along with it as it was much easier in a racist society.

Her parents were in some kind of cult, there were allegations of sex and physical abuse, and she seems to have other personal issues going on, so this isn't just a simple case of "pretending" or tribal imposition. Something else is going on.

The terms 'bad' and 'good' seem inaccurate and unhelpful.

A white person identifying as Black is seen as cultural appropriation.

In Canada there has been a recent issue of a politician claiming Indigenous heritage, later found to be inaccurate. That too is seen as cultural appropriation. (Although she says she did actually believe it was true - it wasn't deliberate - and there's no reason to disbelieve her).

The reasons for this view include the history of our civilizations.


If someone wants to understand more about gender identity issues, below is an article that discusses some of the facts and considerations about them, showing that there are many aspects to them and there are no final answers at this point. It's worth checking out trustworthy sources and increasing our knowledge and understanding.


From the National Library of Medicine, an article about transgender and gender-diverse issues outlining what is known and, importantly, what is still unknown. It's not as simplistic as "ID'ing as female" (or vice-versa).

To be specific, this discussion focuses on "transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals’ perspectives on research seeking genetic variants associated with TGD identities" (i.e. the question arises about how much genetics features into a person's identity). I'm not sure, to be honest, if this helps or deters more understanding but it can show that there are no simplistic answers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8799808/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2023 02:11PM by Nightingale.

"A white person identifying as Black is seen as cultural appropriation."

But what if it doesn't "feel" like cultural appropriation? Doesn't calling it that violate the rights of the individual?

In certain possible constructs, yes.

We just don't happen to live with that construct.

So it's like wide ties vs skinny ties. If you had wide neckties, all you had to do is wait a few decades for them to come back in style.

Is individualism really going away? I think it depends how much money you have. For "the little people", yes.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So it's like wide ties vs skinny ties. If you had
> wide neckties, all you had to do is wait a few
> decades for them to come back in style.

This is really minimizing the crucial reality of people's lives.

It's not like that at all.

No comparison. At all.

>The terms 'bad' and 'good' seem inaccurate and unhelpful.

Accuracy and helpfulness has never been a goal with El Gato. Provocation is the goal.

I've complained numerous times that he almost never plays a story straight - he always does something to distort it, like adding the terms bad and good in this case.

Did anybody listen to Sam Harris?
It’s crazy that Caitlin Jenner is celebrated (good) while a professor asking the question in a paper that I asked in the OP, gets her run out of town on a rail(bad).

Sam Harris has the same goal you do - provocation.

I was going to say, "Apples and Oranges" but then I heard someone from the Peanut Gallery saying, 'but what if an orange *honestly* feels like they are really an apple?' And then another peanut says, "But what if the apple takes offense to this. And, besides how are the people who want to eat to know that the orange isn't an orange?" "Well they should not trust their eyes but ask." "So then we would have to ask everybody because we can't take anything for granted? It's too much to ask."

What is going on, what will keep going on, is going to keep on keeping on. The peanut gallery wants to debate like it actually matters. But there are more Mormon missionaries making conversions than anyone on the two sides of any social issue convincing each other of anything at all.

You can only make a difference on stage.

All of this makes me see Mormonism in a more favorable light. All of the world is a stage and we are the screenwriters. Does it matter that Joseph made it all up? For the most part, humans are highly irrational herd animals. Wherever the herd goes, they will follow.

The woke want to drive the herd. Will it work, or will they start a stampede? Nobody knows. The popularity of Trump makes me think the would-be herders don't have anything under control.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All of this makes me see Mormonism in a more
> favorable light.

Good heavens.


> For the most part, humans
> are highly irrational herd animals. Wherever the
> herd goes, they will follow.

Because one person transitions others will follow?

I highly doubt it.


> The woke want to drive the herd.

Oh no. You didn't say 'woke' did you?

Yeah. You went and did.

And as if the unwoke aren't trying to drive the herd, going after books, trans females (they seem completely unconcerned about trans males - interesting that) gender-reassignment and other issues that affect minuscule numbers of people. Except abortion bans - those affect a pretty large group.

And Disney. Gotta nail Disney for being insufficiently judgmental.

How useless facts often are as people really are people and nothing can be done about it.

the ideas that shape and drive the herd are in constant flux. this is not new. It's the basis for how the herd even formed in the first place.

you just seem to be seeing it for the first time in your life and you're reacting poorly.

My problem is not with transgender-ism, or racial identity. I don't give a flying shit. My problem is with the morons who clearly have nothing better to do than to shit themselves about things which are NONE OF THEIR FUCKING CONCERN. Why does ANYONE care what another person wishes to identify as as long as it doesn't pick their pocket or break their leg?

The mental illness is with the finger waggers and what-about-ists.


HH =)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2023 05:06PM by Maude.

Happy_Heretic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My problem is not with transgender-ism, or racial
> identity. I don't give a flying shit. My problem
> is with the morons who clearly have nothing better
> to do than to shit themselves about things which
> are NONE OF THEIR FUCKING CONCERN. Why does
> ANYONE care what another person wishes to identify
> as as long as it doesn't pick their pocket or
> break their leg?
>
> The mental illness is with the finger waggers and
> what-about-ists.
>
>
> HH =)


Apparently the women who have to compete against biological men who identify as biological women. But if we’re saying sexes are equal, why even separate sports by sex?

Why not let them compete on an even playing field and allow women to get jacked up on testosterone and steroids if they want. Wouldn’t that solve the problem of trans men in sports?

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Apparently the women who have to compete against
> biological men who identify as biological women.

Maybe you didn't see the article I linked which explains how it's not (or not only) a biological issue.

> But if we’re saying sexes are equal, why even
> separate sports by sex?

The concept of "sexes are equal" is NOT referencing physical traits. I think you likely know that.


> Why not let them compete on an even playing field
> and allow women to get jacked up on testosterone
> and steroids if they want. Wouldn’t that solve
> the problem of trans men in sports?

You know that old (really old) TV show The Naked City (I think that was the name) where the intro included a deep male voice saying mega seriously: "There are 10 million stories in the Naked City" (not sure on the #). That jumped into my head when I read your comment. There are erroneous ideas in your (likely sarcastic) question. Not 10 million but quite a few.

For one, many women choose not to take testosterone. I can't believe I even have to say that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/22/2023 07:57PM by Nightingale.

I’m just saying I don’t really care about sports, I think we put way too high of a priority on silly games.
Having said that, I also believe in equality. I’m all for it.
But there’s a problem with trans female athletes competing with women, it violates women athlete's right to compete against biological women. Women shouldn’t have to compete against biological men physically, although many could, they’re the exception.
I agree men, have an unfair advantage, thanks to nature.

And I agree with the 70% of Americans who think
Women shouldn’t be forced to compete against biological men who identify as women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 02:02AM by schrodingerscat.

Maybe you could notify all the boxing and wrestling organizations to let them know that their weight classifications aren't needed because they can just jack up on hormones if they want?

The sports thing needs to be worked out, but IMO that is a different issue than what you are going on and on about here.

> The sports thing needs to be worked out, but IMO
> that is a different issue than what you are going
> on and on about here.

+a lot.

Zactly


HH =)

As I have stated before, I think that Rachel Dolezal was a unique case. She was raised in an abusive, fundie Christian household. Her family went on to adopt several African American children and one Haitian child. My thinking is that psychologically, she came to identify more with her siblings than she did with her abusive parents.

While I don't condone what she did, I find it to be perhaps understandable.

Is it really widespread that people identify as a race to which they do not belong? I think not. The only other examples that I can think of are the very occasional students who have tried to game college admissions, and people who have heard family legends about their ancestors that may or may not be true.

There are many transgender people, however, including the patients whose medical records were recently handed over to the Tennessee Attorney General (see my recent post about that.)

Not only was Dolezal raised with Black siblings, she attended a historically Black college, married a Black, and had mixed-race (which in America basically means "Black" if that is one of the races) children. I think it is entirely credible that she did indeed identify with/as Black.

It is ironic that the much anticipated (for good and ill) Caitlin Jenner magazine cover came out the exact same week as the Dolezal "scandal". I didn't see a dime's worth of difference between the two cases, though the liberal pundits fell all over themselves explaining how they were in no way the same.

70% of Americans say biological men don’t belong in women’s sports.

I agree.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna88940

The majority has not always been correct. Just the majority.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The majority has not always been correct. Just the
> majority.

I also agree with her 16 teammates on the UPenn swim team, who say it isn’t fair to them to have to compete with a biological man.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna14928

Well, that's one area where we happen to agree. There is currently no magical way to undo many years of body development under the influence of male hormones.

Exceptional elite level female athletes sometimes train with the men, anyway. I know of one who did, and she later went on to win an Olympic silver medal.

"Race" is made up by humans to categorize other humans.

It's arbitrary, it's not set in stone, and it's not natural.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/25/race-east-jackson-ohio-appalachia-white-black

The pale woman with frizzy grey-streaked hair commands her on-and-off partner of over 20 years, Jimmy – who is from one of the few white families in East Jackson – to fetch her purse. He plops it on to her lap; she struggles to get at an old piece of paper folded up in her wallet. She slowly unfolds it to present her birth certificate.

“Negro”, it reads, next to each of her parents’ names. She looks up triumphantly, victory in her periwinkle eyes. “It’s a legal document,” she says.

The last known full-blooded black person in her family was her great-great-grandfather Thomas Byrd, her parents told her. Photos of them, who both look white, adorn the wooden walls on either side of Shreck’s chair. Their stares follow her throughout their former home. They are the ones who told her she was black.


“I’m 53 years old, and that’s all I’ve ever been raised as: black,” Shreck says. “So if you’re taught that from when I’m old enough to understand, up to when you’re a grown woman, then [it’s] born and bred in you and you’re automatically black.”

As first reported in State of the Re:Union, most of Shreck’s generation and the generations before her here in East Jackson, on the edge of Appalachian Ohio, were raised to believe they are black. Never mind that they might register to most as white by appearance, or that there is hardly a trace of black ancestry left in their blood. This inherited identity most East Jackson residents still cling to and fiercely protect is based on where they were born and who they were told they are. It comes from a history rooted in racism and an identity placed upon their ancestors – and now many of them – without their consent.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 10:39AM by anybody.

Your gender is in your brain, not your pants.

You can't "create" this, you can't "force" this -- any more than you can make a left-handed person into a right-handed person.

It's a natural consequence of human development.

It just happens.

https://youtu.be/cuIkLNsRtas



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 10:40AM by anybody.

After reading to the end of the OP, I had to go back and find out what the original discussion was. I looked up Rachel Dolezal.

"Rachel Dolezal, 43, has claimed she is unable to find a job after it was revealed she is a race faker in 2015"

Race faker, there's a term you don't hear everyday. Rachel identifies as a black person, so what. I think the issue is she embarrassed the NCAAP chapter and herself. Theoretically, it shouldn't matter what race you are to run an organization but you have to get acceptance from your audience. If she would have explained that she was born white at the beginning , she wouldn't be in this mess but then she wouldn't have been elected to head the Spokane NCAAP chapter.

If she’s a ‘race faker’ when ‘race’ only makes up less than 1/10th of 1% of our genetic makeup, then why is it biological males, identifying as women to compete in women’s sports are not considered ‘sex fakers’ when their DNA is 100% XY chromosomes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 12:08PM by schrodingerscat.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why is it biological males,
> identifying as women to compete in women’s
> sports

Highly unlikely they "fake" their ID just to compete. A bit drastic I would think. I would suggest that a bit of simple research could provide some basic info about it. Biology, it seems, is not the be-all, end-all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2023 01:09PM by Nightingale.

and you still won't accept the fact that it's not all about chromosomes.

Human sexuality is a combination of many factors, not just biology.

It's been pointed out to you that natal XY females with CAIS/AIS have been in competition, and it's not as rare as you might think.

It's also not easy to make a bright shining line for sex verification in sport:



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


Sex verification in sports (also known as gender verification, or loosely as gender determination or a sex test) occurs because eligibility of athletes to compete is restricted whenever sporting events are limited to a single sex, which is generally the case, as well as when events are limited to mixed-sex teams of defined composition (e.g., most pairs events). Practice has varied tremendously over time, across borders and by competitive level. Issues have arisen multiple times in the Olympic games and other high-profile sporting competitions, for example allegations that certain male athletes attempted to compete as women or that certain female athletes had intersex conditions perceived to give unfair advantage. The topic of sex verification is related to the more recent question of how to treat transgender people in sports. Sex verification is not typically conducted on athletes competing in the male category.

Sex verification in sports began in the 1940s with "femininity certificates" provided by a physician. It subsequently evolved into visual inspections, physical examinations, chromosome testing, and later testosterone level testing.[1] These tests were all designed to ensure that athletes were only allowed to compete as their sex, but mostly resulted in the exclusion of intersex athletes from female sports.[2] Mandatory sex verification testing was fuelled by anxieties surrounding the "unfemineinity" of some female athletes, as more participated in masculine events (e.g., track and field).[3]

Sex verification can be substantially more complicated than checking whether a person's sex chromosome pair[a] is XX vs. XY, or comparing their levels of key sex hormones to distinct reference ranges, to determine an athlete's sex. This is due to variations in human biology where some people are not unambiguously female or male, not all cells in a persons body have the same genotype or the presence of other genetic abnormalities. These reasons, among others, led sporting bodies to abandon chromosome testing towards the end of the 20th century and use hormone testing instead. The downside of hormone testing, however, is that policies on hyperandrogenism (women with naturally higher testosterone) were required, which have sparked both public debate and legal battles.


Rachel Dolezal assuming a black identity is not the same as a transgender person saying who they are.


You can't compare them.


Trans people are not "pretending" as I've repeatedly tried to tell you, it's not a mental illness or a fraud, and I'm wasting my words trying to tell you this over and over again.

Yes. The last three sentences. The nutshell version.

Mr. Cat, you are on a role today. I didn't say "race faker" the article did. I don't associate race with transgender.

Can you say "race faker" ten times in a row?