lordCarbonFiber

Two limits with a large space of indeterminate in between sounds an awful lot like an analogue signal. A system that classifies as A, B, other: grab bag of unrelated conditions isn't particularly useful in a societal nor medical context (and why it isn't used anywhere). You can objectively measure certain karyotypes, measure how someone's body reacts to hormones (and what hormones they produce), how that makes them feel, what that body can then do reproductively, (almost like a spectrum of correlated traits) but not make nice neat boxes that fits in the reproduction section of the text book you had in the 6th grade. By that measure, gender is just as "objective". Ask a person what gender they are, exactly 1 measurement required boom you're done (and with better accuracy than trying to measure anything else to boot).

Your specific exposure to the public "debate" is recent, sure. But just because you hadn't heard of it before the heritage foundation spent millions of dollars to insure you did didn't mean it wasn't happening.

How difficult is it to ask a simple question every morning? Or baring that, engage your kid. Could come to a compromise for defaulting to a gender neutral "they" for when you don't know how they're feeling in a given day. Upon which they could give you a reasonable clarification (or you know, just ask).

When your kid's demands are as simple as "hey support my identity, which requires nothing but thinking slightly more about the words you use" how could they not be frustrated when their parent can't even clear that low bar.

Say anything positive about trans people on this site and the downvotes come ^_^;;

A mistake that a lot of people make when talking about bigotry is assuming it begins and ends with loud angry people yelling slurs. Building a system that genders people based on their voice isn't "inconsiderate" it's just a transphobic thing to do. Systematic biases don't require malice from any individual working within them to perpetuate; but that doesn't make them any less real and doesn't mean that we shouldn't just accept that all tech should also support them.

The exhausting angle is real. I think there's some inheritant bad faith (even if unintentional) in asking sensitive questions to a forumn with no validations on identity or expertise. Your odds of finding someone that knows these things deeply that doesn't also have an emotional connection to them are relatively low (there aren't a lot of phds in sports medicine floating around HN for example). So instead it becomes up to someone directly effected to provide such responses and that's just a lot; save the sensitive questions for the experts or come with direct quotes from published sources.

So, first off, that number is not the average, it's the median. Quoting from Table2 "Data are presented as median (25th percentile–75th percentile]." The paper isn't on nonfree testosterone in general, but in the opening statement the implication is the tail is rather long "Among the 1332 female observations, 44 showed an fT concentration >29.4pmol/L.17 Twenty-four female athletes showed a T concentration >3.08nmol/L which has been calculated to represent the 99th percentile in a previous normative study in elite female athletes."

The performance advantages they measured, in the events inwhich there were any, are explicitly linked to fT not non free testosterone and even then aren't being presented as causative.

"Our study design cannot provide evidence for causality between androgen levels and athletic performance, but can indicate associations between androgen concentrations and athletic performance. Thus, we deliberately decided not to exclude performances achieved by females with biological hyperandrogenism and males with biological hypoandrogenism whatever the cause of their condition (oral contraceptives, polycystic ovaries syndrome, disorder of sex development, doping, overtraining). As a consequence, the calculated mean fT value in the present study is higher than the 8.06pmol/L median value previously reported in a similar female population."

They certainly don't appear to be arguing that hyperandrogenism in women should be a disqualifying condition. Especially in running events like the ones Semenya competed in since the performance gains appear most significantly in the throwing events.

"Our hypothesis is that ...androgens exert their ergogenic effects on some sportswomen through better visuospatial neural activation."

We live in a world where google exists, hell where scihub exists. It's extremely suspicious to show up in a forum "asking questions" when these resources exist. Getting told to "fuck off" in this context is basically being told to RTFM. You can look in my comment history to find just how easy it was to compile some sources to discredit the idea that trans women in sports is some unknown taboo.

If we spent just a fraction of the effort making spaces safer for marginalized groups as we do debating bad faith actors the internet would be a much better place in my opinion.

So that's the stance "the liberties of the intolerant should be limited only insofar as they demonstrably limit the liberties of others" most of the major social networks take and it falls short in that it's hard to draw that line. (also the ideas of constitutional safe guards applying to private entities is a whole other can of worms; id argue the speech the government can limit should be a subset of what any given private moderator might choose to)

Two examples: what im going to call the "im not touching you" type of harassment -- that is posting things clearly designed to hurt and wouldn't make sense in context unless designed for harassment. The platonic example here is the image macro that's the trans flag with the words "Your parents will burry you with the name they gave you". Cuel to the extreme, but doesn't technically call for violence against the given person, or the protected group at large so twitter and facebook, etc happily leave it up (and people wanting to be assholes hyper optimized pretty quick; ive seen the macro posted by multiple people in multiple places).

Second being the idea of stochastic terrorism. Painting a group as an unchecked evil means you don't have to tell anyone specifically they should commit violence, but, it's hard to be surprised if they come to that conclusion. See the shootings in Charleston or Christchurch.