followed tags: 16
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1469 days
If we use chromosomes, what about a person who was born intersex, and does not have a distinct XX or XY? Born XY? Sure, rule them out. Born with an indeterminate sex? Testosterone levels must be sufficiently low.
Besides, Could such a person sweep after lowering their testosterone levels for a continuous period of six months or longer? I'm not so sure. At an elite level I'd think that would make an enormous difference.
In this context, I meant cisgendered men and women. Cisgendered men are stronger (and faster, and have faster training recovery) than cisgendered women primarily because of higher testosterone levels. So primarily caring about testosterone levels, to me, sidesteps all the gender politics and focuses on what matters for athletic performance. I rather like this method of doing things, because it's just defining a boundary for a competition class. Weight, equipment allowed, supplements allowed, gender, and now testosterone level allowed. It makes sense to me. In a sense it doesn't even matter how the competitors define themselves.
She's not being banned from participating. She just has to prove she has the testosterone levels of a cisgendered woman, and if she doesn't, she must get the level lowered. According to the ruling, if a woman has above a certain level of testosterone in her blood, the level must be lowered before she can compete. Seeing how testosterone levels are what causes secondary sex characteristics in men, and also the main reason why men are much stronger than women, this makes complete sense to me.
The ruling's press release claims:
- No female would have serum levels of natural testosterone at 5 nmol/L or above unless they have DSD or a tumour.
Assuming this is accurate, and a woman has testosterone levels above 5 nmol/L due to one of these reasons, AND it gives a significant advantage, having the athlete take a pill to be eligible in competitions seems okay to me.
I mean, when someone takes steroids, they're literally just injecting testosterone into their blood. If a woman has some medical condition that make her testosterone many times higher than normal, it's a pretty significant advantage. Like, arguably as much as taking steroids.
It looks like the ruling Caster Semenya is fighting is about elevated testosterone levels in women. That is definitely testable. According to the ruling, if a woman has above a certain level of testosterone in her blood, the level must be lowered before she can compete. Seeing how testosterone levels are what causes secondary sex characteristics in men, and also the main reason why men are much stronger than women, this makes complete sense to me. When men transition to women, taking medication to lower testosterone levels is one of the main actions (along with raising estrogen) that cause physical changes.
Location: Atlanta, GA
Current preoccupation: I'm an electrical engineer with a focus in embedded hardware and digital hardware design. I'm an FPGA guy. I'm also working on a master's. I have a wife and a kid. I like meditation. Someday I'd like to start a business, or really just make cool/useful things and sell them. For now I am in a more typical job.
Bullshit, basically. But in a spiritual/pseudoscience context. Homeopathy is woo. So is astrology.
The existence of Wim Hof puts a crack in my tendency to have an "everything is woo" worldview.
Can anyone tell me why this doesn't mean my son's generation and every generation after is screwed? Is this trend likely to continue? Is there any hope?
I think this may have been more effective if she was open to more fundamental lifestyle changes instead of trying to change as little as possible about her life while getting rid of products from these companies. If the reason she's interested in cutting out products from these companies is because they're addictive, pervasive, too powerful, and bad for you, it implies that we've centered our lives around them. So effectively getting rid of them means lifestyle changes, which this reporter seems to have little interest in.
Things like lack of constant music, being harder to communicate not in person, and not using the easy but allegedly unethical services, are all part of the point. It doesn't make sense to question if these products are good for us without honestly asking what a good life looks like without them. With rates of suicide and depression rising over the past decade, especially in teens, instead of asking what to replace Instagram with, it makes more sense to explore what life is like replacing Instagram with more personal and meaningful connections.
- That's what reducing externalities looks like.
You're implying all businesses have the same externalities. Because right now they all pay the same tax rate regardless of what they do. Really reducing externalities would look more like beef being $15/pound and air travel costing double what it does now, but solar power being cheaper than coal and locally produced goods being more competitive because of lower transportation costs.
You say taxes are the cost of operation. Okay, let's tax according the costs of operation. Not a flat rate regardless of what the true cost of operation is.
You make some very good points.
What I meant by correcting for externalities is imposing fines for things that have a social cost or burden.
And, related to that, what I meant was 0% corporate income tax, and my thinking was one could charge directly for costs incurred by society because of a corporation.
But the obvious question is how? Charging for some costs is straightforward, and some not. Part of the answer would be a high unimproved land value tax.
I want the dream restaurants to be taxed less than the union carbides, you know? But I feel like the way I want to do it adds complexity. Maybe it would be too complicated to do things this way? On the other hand, it sort of seems like how a lot of local govenments operate right now.