I’m sorry you had to do this. Your analysis in this issue is a valuable counter to arguments that are often grounded purely in emotion, so your tweets will be missed. The gradual loss of rational dialogue in the public sphere is a bigger issue and long term is really serious and damaging.
You explain it very well, as always. It’s an absolute principle of unbiased thinking that if you find yourself uncomfortable with the path which the law, natural logic, and the facts are leading you down, you still pursue it.
Not that you necessarily did find it uncomfortable, but it obviously was troublesome to a certain extent.
You've been very useful to a lot of people who understand that you are writing about the law, how it must/can be interpreted and how the concept of discrimination works. I know I'm not alone in disliking some of what I've learned, but it's essential I know it if I'm going to make realistic arguments in support of women's rights (and shooting the messenger is never the answer to unpalatable truths).
Posting your kind of nuanced material on X is like scattering pearls before swine but there are always going to be people who appreciate it and more who benefit from it on reflection.
Enjoy the break from the cesspit and consider returning with replies restricted - tell people if they want to comment or ask questions they can pay for the privilege here!
Really sorry you’ve had such a rubbish time on Twitter/X. I find it a difficult space to keep up with so had missed the unpleasant comments. Please keep writing, on law and, when you wish, on other things, as here. You’re valued!
Completely understand why you have deactivated your X account, I do hope you return as yours is one of the calm, informed voices I rely on and the platform needs, for all those who get angry and don't listen there are many of us who do and really appreciate your take and want to understand the nuance and complexities, take care Michael
I was sorry to see you have deactivated and am glad it should only be temporary. Twitter is not the place for nuance, it seems. and your profile is high enough to attract all sorts to any discussion you decide to join. Looking forward to your continued long form work, and I hope the Australian life is suiting you.
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.
Sounds wise to take a break. Your measured posts and writings are important. I don’t know enough about CAIS but your points seem important. I see someone else has responded here citing another perspective from Emma Hilton. It’s great the discussions are taking place.
I am so sorry that you and Jon - who are both absolute stars and strong supporters of women - have had so many negative responses. I hope you will return to X but understand if you don't.
I, for one, am immensely grateful for your patient responses and superb legal analyses
You've done sterling work and I've learned so much. But, as the saying goes, when helping others, you have to fit your own oxygen mask first. Take care of yourself, Michael.
Thank you for your careful and well informed contributions. These have been very much appreciated by the less noisy majority. Please do return to X when you feel able.
I think the solution here is to think about CAIS as a disability for which the most reasonable accommodation is to allow the karyotypically male athlete to compete in the female category.
That is my own feeling, but Emma Hilton is arguing that male advantage is not solely down to testosterone and that CAIS athletes are over-represented at elite levels. Others are disputing the data she used, so it's all up in the air due to a lack of reliable data. I think the dividing line of "no male advantage in female sport" is the way to go though, even if there remains work to do on definitions.
There’s no evidence I’ve ever seen that CAIS athletes (who aren’t sensitive to testosterone) are over-represented. I’ve never seen Emma say this either. 5-ARD athletes, who seem female at birth but are actually male, and very definitely *are* sensitive to testosterone, are significantly over represented - by 140x their normal occurrence in the population according to one scientific paper.
I think the problem Michael identifies is that we don't have a legal way of discriminating by male advantage, only by sex itself. CAIS and PAIS (along with ovotesticular disorder) seem to the only cases where there's a real situation of someone being very difficult to categorise as one sex or the other. I don't know anything about Dr. Hilton's data, but it's not very relevant to the principle. These are medical disorders. Disability is the right frame through which to view them. Maybe we get a CAIS category at the Paralympics.
If I set up an Atheist discussion group would I have to defend why I wanted to exclude religious believers from the group? To whom? How about a prostate cancer survivors group? Would I have no basis for excluding women?
I think a lot of the debate is made noisier by people whose understanding of the many nuances of the topic is limited and who aren’t used to logical argument. And you certainly don’t have to indulge them!
There's nothing "nuanced" about the sexes involved in human sexual reproduction. Two males or two females cannot perpetuate the species: it requires the fertilisation of a large immobile gamete (ovum) by a small mobile gamete (Sperm).
That’s true, but sports aren’t about reproduction. Our broad delineation of them matches sex categories but there is a reasonable argument to be made that what we’re really trying to do is exclude male advantage from the F category.
They are about male and female. If you want to redefine female to include males with DSDs or males who self-identify as female then there will come a time when no natal female stands on the podium of women's sporting events.
I haven't anywhere suggested including all males who self-identify as females in the F category. I have pointed out that there are some people who are gonadally male but who because of their DSD will appear in almost every respect to be female (except they don't have a uterus, though they do have a vagina from birth) and don't get the advantage of male puberty because their bodies don't process testosterone. In that respect, they're arguably at a disadvantage compared to F athletes, whose bodies can (and do) process androgens. Try a search on "CAIS DSD" and look at the images of the people who have it.
You're quite entitled to insist that the F category is absolutely and only for those who are gonadally female, but you need to consider that doing so excludes some people from fair competition. From memory, there were 6 CAIS athletes at the 1996 Olympics (when testing was last done). No idea if they won any medals. But if they did, none of us noticed, unlike with other DSDs more recently.
The sex of a person can be determined from their gametes, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. Sex is now so important because of Stonewall's TWAW gaslighting and the widespread ideological capture of our government, institutions, police, CPS, the judiciary, schools and universities and the 3rd sector. The captured IOC has put inclusion ahead of women's safety. We asked 41 universities to confirm or refute the binary and immutable nature of human sex. Not one has responded. https://mneill.substack.com/p/isbi-update-18-jul-2024?r=zfazk
A great shame you have had to make this decision but absolutely you must prioritise your own well being above trying to educate louts.
I’m sorry you had to do this. Your analysis in this issue is a valuable counter to arguments that are often grounded purely in emotion, so your tweets will be missed. The gradual loss of rational dialogue in the public sphere is a bigger issue and long term is really serious and damaging.
You explain it very well, as always. It’s an absolute principle of unbiased thinking that if you find yourself uncomfortable with the path which the law, natural logic, and the facts are leading you down, you still pursue it.
Not that you necessarily did find it uncomfortable, but it obviously was troublesome to a certain extent.
Hope you can come back to Twitter soon.
Not self indulgent at all Michael.
You've been very useful to a lot of people who understand that you are writing about the law, how it must/can be interpreted and how the concept of discrimination works. I know I'm not alone in disliking some of what I've learned, but it's essential I know it if I'm going to make realistic arguments in support of women's rights (and shooting the messenger is never the answer to unpalatable truths).
Posting your kind of nuanced material on X is like scattering pearls before swine but there are always going to be people who appreciate it and more who benefit from it on reflection.
Enjoy the break from the cesspit and consider returning with replies restricted - tell people if they want to comment or ask questions they can pay for the privilege here!
Really sorry you’ve had such a rubbish time on Twitter/X. I find it a difficult space to keep up with so had missed the unpleasant comments. Please keep writing, on law and, when you wish, on other things, as here. You’re valued!
Completely understand why you have deactivated your X account, I do hope you return as yours is one of the calm, informed voices I rely on and the platform needs, for all those who get angry and don't listen there are many of us who do and really appreciate your take and want to understand the nuance and complexities, take care Michael
I was sorry to see you have deactivated and am glad it should only be temporary. Twitter is not the place for nuance, it seems. and your profile is high enough to attract all sorts to any discussion you decide to join. Looking forward to your continued long form work, and I hope the Australian life is suiting you.
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.
Sounds wise to take a break. Your measured posts and writings are important. I don’t know enough about CAIS but your points seem important. I see someone else has responded here citing another perspective from Emma Hilton. It’s great the discussions are taking place.
Michael
I am so sorry that you and Jon - who are both absolute stars and strong supporters of women - have had so many negative responses. I hope you will return to X but understand if you don't.
I, for one, am immensely grateful for your patient responses and superb legal analyses
Best wishes
You've done sterling work and I've learned so much. But, as the saying goes, when helping others, you have to fit your own oxygen mask first. Take care of yourself, Michael.
Thank you for your careful and well informed contributions. These have been very much appreciated by the less noisy majority. Please do return to X when you feel able.
This debate needs more keen minds like yours & Jon’s in the mix to apply logic rather than emotion. Hope you’re doing OK - we’ve got your back.
I think the solution here is to think about CAIS as a disability for which the most reasonable accommodation is to allow the karyotypically male athlete to compete in the female category.
That is my own feeling, but Emma Hilton is arguing that male advantage is not solely down to testosterone and that CAIS athletes are over-represented at elite levels. Others are disputing the data she used, so it's all up in the air due to a lack of reliable data. I think the dividing line of "no male advantage in female sport" is the way to go though, even if there remains work to do on definitions.
There’s no evidence I’ve ever seen that CAIS athletes (who aren’t sensitive to testosterone) are over-represented. I’ve never seen Emma say this either. 5-ARD athletes, who seem female at birth but are actually male, and very definitely *are* sensitive to testosterone, are significantly over represented - by 140x their normal occurrence in the population according to one scientific paper.
I think the problem Michael identifies is that we don't have a legal way of discriminating by male advantage, only by sex itself. CAIS and PAIS (along with ovotesticular disorder) seem to the only cases where there's a real situation of someone being very difficult to categorise as one sex or the other. I don't know anything about Dr. Hilton's data, but it's not very relevant to the principle. These are medical disorders. Disability is the right frame through which to view them. Maybe we get a CAIS category at the Paralympics.
Hmmm. It perhaps kicks the can down the road a it but if it is a disability, then the Paralympics is where they should be, in my opinion.
If I set up an Atheist discussion group would I have to defend why I wanted to exclude religious believers from the group? To whom? How about a prostate cancer survivors group? Would I have no basis for excluding women?
I think a lot of the debate is made noisier by people whose understanding of the many nuances of the topic is limited and who aren’t used to logical argument. And you certainly don’t have to indulge them!
There's nothing "nuanced" about the sexes involved in human sexual reproduction. Two males or two females cannot perpetuate the species: it requires the fertilisation of a large immobile gamete (ovum) by a small mobile gamete (Sperm).
That’s true, but sports aren’t about reproduction. Our broad delineation of them matches sex categories but there is a reasonable argument to be made that what we’re really trying to do is exclude male advantage from the F category.
They are about male and female. If you want to redefine female to include males with DSDs or males who self-identify as female then there will come a time when no natal female stands on the podium of women's sporting events.
I haven't anywhere suggested including all males who self-identify as females in the F category. I have pointed out that there are some people who are gonadally male but who because of their DSD will appear in almost every respect to be female (except they don't have a uterus, though they do have a vagina from birth) and don't get the advantage of male puberty because their bodies don't process testosterone. In that respect, they're arguably at a disadvantage compared to F athletes, whose bodies can (and do) process androgens. Try a search on "CAIS DSD" and look at the images of the people who have it.
You're quite entitled to insist that the F category is absolutely and only for those who are gonadally female, but you need to consider that doing so excludes some people from fair competition. From memory, there were 6 CAIS athletes at the 1996 Olympics (when testing was last done). No idea if they won any medals. But if they did, none of us noticed, unlike with other DSDs more recently.
The sex of a person can be determined from their gametes, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. Sex is now so important because of Stonewall's TWAW gaslighting and the widespread ideological capture of our government, institutions, police, CPS, the judiciary, schools and universities and the 3rd sector. The captured IOC has put inclusion ahead of women's safety. We asked 41 universities to confirm or refute the binary and immutable nature of human sex. Not one has responded. https://mneill.substack.com/p/isbi-update-18-jul-2024?r=zfazk
*Four unis responded but did not state their position as an institution.