I don’t know your political leanings, but this is consistent with the same people who are anti-DEI and anti-anything else that forces equality.

So what’s so wrong about forcing equality literally anywhere else? Or, why is it necessary only in women’s sports?

Then, going back to the original post, why is Michael Phelps lauded despite having clear genetic advantages?

But where are you basing your definition of “fairness”? If you exclude people with a biological advantage, since that would be unfair, then literally all current athletes would be excluded, since by qualifying for the Olympics they have proven that they have a strong biological advantage over the average person.

and folks get real angry when you describe the by far most common set of common traits a group of humans have as “normal”.

By that argument, Christianity is normal. It’s the most common religion.

So I assume you think Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are abnormal, yes?

So, would you agree that if a born male is below the certain testosterone level that the person should compete in women’s category? No one seems to be railing on this but somehow everyone is up in arms when it comes to women’s sports.

Or, you know, one could separate athletes into brackets/categories that are better comparable and don’t give certain people a huge advantage over others. Make a separate marathon category for East Africans. Make a separate swimming category for people like Phelps. Make categories for boxing based on strength or performance.

Multiple female skiers have called for a different way of doing things for example, because the shorter courses for women bore them and they aren’t allowed to compete against men.

By naturally occurring I mean w/o the use of drugs/doping/surgery.

Without discussing the sex/gender side of this argument; I don’t understand why you’re not applying the same logic to freakishly dominant male athletes?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2009/02/does-michael-phelps-lung-capacity-allow-him-to-take-monster-bong-hits.html

We measured lung capacity in biology class in the ninth grade, and I had the largest of the class. Six liters. Most guys were around 5.5l.

Phelps has twelve.

And there’s a ton of scientific studies about Usain Bolt.

I understand your point, but would the same logic not be applicable, even if the “unnatural” (they’re very natural but you get the point, that’s why the quotations) physical traits for Phelps and Bolt aren’t necessarily as significant as having very high testosterone levels in a women’s league?

It sure is a catchall. However, you don’t need to be technical or verbose. The scientific term you want is phenotypical.

I still wonder how you don’t think you’re being intersexist at the moment though? Like, where do you draw the line? Is a woman with PCOS disallowed because it causes a slightly elevated testosterone level? What about a woman with webbed feet? They wouldn’t be considered phenotypical either.

But why don’t we get a little more technical and verbose for a second. The typical female testosterone range is 0.5-2.4 nmol/L (that’s nanomoles per litre). The typical male range? 10-35 nmol/L. A woman with PCOS may have levels around 2.5-3.5 nmol/L. Someone with Caster Semanya’s (alleged, never confirmed) condition would typically have around 3.5-5 nm/L. Still half or less than a phenotypical male. So I bring it back to the webbed feet, because they’d probably be similarly on par in terms of the advantage they provide.