aaaja

No I'm just clarifying what it means legally for someone to have been issued with a GRC.

So is looking unusual in some undefined way is what "visibly non-binary" means? I genuinely do not have any reference point for this description, and certainly couldn't tell if someone is or isn't based on looks.

My male colleague who self-describes with a "non-binary" identity has no obvious visual markers of this.

Yes it's all so tawdry. Even the one that isn't stickers but an etching, and looks somewhat visually pleasing compared to the others, has a cringe message.

This site seems kind of pointless. There are no examples of the product's output or any demonstration of how it compares with other film scanners.

Your previous comments upthread moved the discussion on to what a GRC means in legal terms.

> visibly non-binary

What does this mean?

At my workplace, one of my male colleagues calls himself "non-binary" and has "(they/them)" in his email signature. He looks like any other man to me.

As far as I can tell, it's more like a religious belief than any kind of distinct visual style.

Socially it depends on how well they manage to disguise themselves as male. Being visibly pregnant is a very obvious indicator that a woman who is attempting to present herself as a man is not actually a man.

This applies very narrowly. A GRC allows "acquired gender" to replace sex when sex is ascertained by birth certificate, which is only done in limited circumstances. This is distinct, in law, from actually being that sex.

I don't think you'll get anywhere arguing with these people, especially the ones who've bought into this cult to the extent that they've transed their own children.

They have to convince themselves they've done the right thing, because the alternative is horrifying.

This is a fun little game, thanks for sharing.

Agreed. Now that web access is so readily available, it's about time online service providers started taking more responsibility for what they publish and who can access it. That short-lived era of the Internet being only for tech-savvy adults is long gone. The online world is the real world now.

People often use the phrase "think of the children!" mockingly, but we really do need to think about their welfare and what sort of society we want them to develop and grow up in, and that includes the part of society that is mediated online.

Despite the criticisms people have over some of the detail in these new regulations, I see this as a very positive first step in the right direction.

World Athletics' policymakers are well aware of this, and it is addressed in the article where it discusses eligibility for the female category:

"Biological males who have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and therefore have not gone through male sexual development including any type of male puberty."

It's because there's not many of them eligible to compete at this level. Fortunately, there is a pipeline of restrictions in place so hardly any of these males filter through.

Firstly, there is the eligibility criteria to compete as women. Up until 2016, when the IOC relaxed the policy to only require these males to undergo testosterone suppression, the rule was that they had to have had the surgery to remove the testicles and reshape the penis into a hole. Only a minority of these males choose to go through with this surgery as it is, so to intersect with the group of males who want to seriously compete in sport was highly unlikely. Testosterone suppression, which not all of these males choose to do anyway, has strict limits of minimum duration and maximum concentration. So this in itself filters out most.

Secondly, no athlete can directly apply to compete in the Olympics, as all entrants have to go through their country's organizing committee. So this limits countries to those who recognize trans identities and who have a committee brazen enough to enter a male who wants to be female in the female category, ahead of actual female athletes.

Thirdly, even if those conditions are met, the athlete must choose to do this knowing that the eyes of the world will be watching and that such an entry into the Olympics will be highly and globally controversial. This filters out all but the most shameless. Note this contrasts with the female athletes who claim transgender identities and enter, uncontroversially, into the category of their sex, of which there have been several over the years.

All this is why almost all of the trans-identifying males who compete, and win, in the female category do so in competitions other than the Olympics. Mostly smaller, regional ones.

It's also why most of the male athletes who've competed at the Olympics in the female category are those with disorders of sex development. The rules are different for these athletes. Though not without controversy either. DSD policy has changed over time too, to be more restrictive. The most recent turning point was after male athletes took gold, silver and bronze in the women's 800m at Rio. They didn't claim trans identities, having been erroneously assigned female on their birth certificates, but competing as if they are female was, and is, similarly problematic.

At the 2016 Olympics in Rio, all three medalists in the women's 800m were male athletes with male physiological advantage. None of the three has, or had, a transgender identity.

Fundamentally, this issue isn't about trans. The problem is, competition organizers across many sports decided that including males in the female category is more important than fair competition for female athletes. That's the problem that needs to be addressed.