Michael, your CAIS example is not just about physiological advantage/disadvantage: it is about the male/female category of Sex. Why should a CAIS XY male be awarded a female prize? That is why there is an uproar about the swimmer Lia Thomas, cyclist Emily Bridges and other males competing in female sports. X/Twitter is the Colosseum of p…
Michael, your CAIS example is not just about physiological advantage/disadvantage: it is about the male/female category of Sex. Why should a CAIS XY male be awarded a female prize? That is why there is an uproar about the swimmer Lia Thomas, cyclist Emily Bridges and other males competing in female sports. X/Twitter is the Colosseum of public opinions but, with the widespread TWAW ideological capture there is no other public forum (outside a tribunal) to debate these issues. It requires resilience and I look forward to your return to X/Twitter.
“Why should a CAIS XY male be awarded a female prize?” - because, as he explained, they haven’t had the male pubertal advantage of their testosterone boost because their bodies aren’t sensitive to androgens. If the difference between the male and female category exists to protect females from the male testosterone advantage, then CAIS males who haven’t had that advantage either (and btw appear female in almost every way) do not distort competition in the F category.
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Would you give a women's writing prize to a XY CAIS male? Once a women's sporting event includes males it becomes an Open sporting event.
I think in the women’s writing prize you’d struggle to spot someone with CAIS - they look entirely female and have almost always lived as female their whole life. Also, there’s no “male advantage” in writing as there is in running. Not that CAIS people would have it anyway.
Michael’s point above is the key one. Are we limiting on the absolutely strict rules of “what sex are you”, or on “male advantage”? I think there a reasonable case to be made for CAIS, but certainly opinions can differ.
Sex segregated sports are on the basis of biological Sex not Gender, which is a social construct. It is not about resembling a woman: it is about being born a woman. If a 31 year old looks like a 16 year old that does not entitle him to participate in children's sports.
I think your view could be called the "SRY negative" categorisation, where the one that doesn't disallow CAIS could be called "T puberty negative". One can make persuasive arguments for both, though I'd say that the T puberty-negative one does have the merit of increasing inclusion while not reducing safety or fairness. But it's a discussion to be worked out.
I think your point is entirely reasonable, but CAIS people have proportionally greater stature than women, with slightly longer limbs and larger hands. So that presents a complication.
Michael, your CAIS example is not just about physiological advantage/disadvantage: it is about the male/female category of Sex. Why should a CAIS XY male be awarded a female prize? That is why there is an uproar about the swimmer Lia Thomas, cyclist Emily Bridges and other males competing in female sports. X/Twitter is the Colosseum of public opinions but, with the widespread TWAW ideological capture there is no other public forum (outside a tribunal) to debate these issues. It requires resilience and I look forward to your return to X/Twitter.
“Why should a CAIS XY male be awarded a female prize?” - because, as he explained, they haven’t had the male pubertal advantage of their testosterone boost because their bodies aren’t sensitive to androgens. If the difference between the male and female category exists to protect females from the male testosterone advantage, then CAIS males who haven’t had that advantage either (and btw appear female in almost every way) do not distort competition in the F category.
I don't know how I can make it any clearer. Would you give a women's writing prize to a XY CAIS male? Once a women's sporting event includes males it becomes an Open sporting event.
I think in the women’s writing prize you’d struggle to spot someone with CAIS - they look entirely female and have almost always lived as female their whole life. Also, there’s no “male advantage” in writing as there is in running. Not that CAIS people would have it anyway.
Michael’s point above is the key one. Are we limiting on the absolutely strict rules of “what sex are you”, or on “male advantage”? I think there a reasonable case to be made for CAIS, but certainly opinions can differ.
Sex segregated sports are on the basis of biological Sex not Gender, which is a social construct. It is not about resembling a woman: it is about being born a woman. If a 31 year old looks like a 16 year old that does not entitle him to participate in children's sports.
I think your view could be called the "SRY negative" categorisation, where the one that doesn't disallow CAIS could be called "T puberty negative". One can make persuasive arguments for both, though I'd say that the T puberty-negative one does have the merit of increasing inclusion while not reducing safety or fairness. But it's a discussion to be worked out.
I think your point is entirely reasonable, but CAIS people have proportionally greater stature than women, with slightly longer limbs and larger hands. So that presents a complication.