Social Female NYT journalists argue that testosterone does not boost athletic performance

HereticBD said:
Well that's just it. They banned a certain female because she had naturally high testosterone. Now, how "natural" that level truly is, I don't know. On the surface though, they seem to be banning a female just for being a freak of nature, which seems pretty unfair.
Click to expand...
Having a test level as high as a woman on drugs would be a clear advantage that women could never overcome without them.
 
cincymma79 said:
Having a test level as high as a woman on drugs would be a clear advantage that women could never overcome without them.
Click to expand...

I get that, but what I'm saying is, if the athlete is a biological female who just happened to naturally develop high levels of testosterone, is it fair to disqualify them from competition? I don't think so.

That said, there appears to be more than meets the eye with this particular athlete, so I don't know about her, but just in general I think it would be unfair to disqualify an athlete for essentially having a natural advantage, and telling them to take a bunch of drugs to put them on an equal playing field.
 
The ScorpioN said:
If she's to compete along side females, then her test level is the priority.
Although yes the bigger problem is the fact she's (I thought she was a she as well, news to me she's he) allowed to compete with women in the first place. You think she should get banned either way?
Click to expand...
Okay that I agree with, is that if she's allowed to compete, the only thing that can possibly try to level the playing field is to drop her testosterone, I get you. If somehow she was xx with that body (to be honest I don't know if that's possible, I have to take other people's word) then the question is tougher. I don't know. But for sure she can't compete at this level with women at this point.
 
HereticBD said:
I get that, but what I'm saying is, if the athlete is a biological female who just happened to naturally develop high levels of testosterone, is it fair to disqualify them from competition? I don't think so.

That said, there appears to be more than meets the eye with this particular athlete, so I don't know about her, but just in general I think it would be unfair to disqualify an athlete for essentially having a natural advantage, and telling them to take a bunch of drugs to put them on an equal playing field.
Click to expand...
You either have a cut off or you do not
 
And corporate Dems wonder why no one trusts NYT.

They also employ that partisan lunatic Bari Weiss who runs around repeating DNC and Intel establishment talking points.
 
If you don't realize that the far left is pushing the opposite of truth on multiple issues, you aren't paying attention.
 
Testosterone = Testes = Testicles
You need a pair of balls to produce testosterone.

Tell me more about your vagina
 
Last edited:
Oh look another "Let me find some random person who made an incorrect comment and use it a a referendum on my superiority" thread
'Women are stupid and everything in the New York Times is lies to steal my money and freedom' is the conclusion you're going for right?

It's hilarious to watch someone who clearly doesn't read or understand what a newspaper is, try to call an editorial opinion piece written by two doctors/authors "female journalist" lol
https://www.americanpressinstitute....ig-problem-but-journalists-can-help-solve-it/
Not that you'll spend a single moment trying to understand what I'm saying because you're too busy trying to make a thread about the "liberal media" like some sad little parrot who learned a few words of English.
 
BangersAndSmash said:
The title of your thread is wrong. Neither of the two women who wrote the article are NYT Journalists. They are doctors who wrote a book called "Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography", and they wrote a short piece which was published in the opinion section of the New York Times.
Click to expand...
I should have checked the comments, but glad I'm not the only one laughing at the OP trying to make some sort of intellectual stand and exposing themselves as a person who doesn't understand how newspapers work.
 
Almost all our negative predictions come true with leftists, so here's another.

When do progressives (at the "science" of the "they" whom they take their direction) remove the names of sex organs and start calling them by derogatory terms (such as "deformities" or "growths" etc.); and/or, how soon do sex organs become considered vulgar so that the hip crowd (progressives) champion their removal (for the good of something, of course)? Human farts kill stuff; only bigots procreate, etc.
 
lol @ nobody actually wanting to argue against the studies she talked about.

Anyway the problem with those studies are they're comparing athletes from one sport to athletes from another sport and using the average testosterone of them to make a conclusion. This is a dumb way to make a conclusion on test because athletes training for one sport will have advantages suited for that specific sport and other similar sports. The way to properly compare would be to get a baseline performance of those athletes at their sport and even other sports, then let them take a 12 week cycle of test and come back and see how their performances compare to what they were 12 weeks ago.

That's how you test for the effects of testosterone, not by comparing different athletes, you compare the same athletes with and without additional test.
 
Fawlty said:
Okay that I agree with, is that if she's allowed to compete, the only thing that can possibly try to level the playing field is to drop her testosterone, I get you. If somehow she was xx with that body (to be honest I don't know if that's possible, I have to take other people's word) then the question is tougher. I don't know. But for sure she can't compete at this level with women at this point.
Click to expand...

She is XY. XX indicates female. XY does not indicate male. It indicates intersex or male.

I cannot believe how many people on twitter are saying this is a racial issue or comparing her to Michael Phelps.

The issue is does she fit within the criteria of a female division competitor?

I would say having a much higher level of testosterone and being XY makes her ineligible for the restricted women's division. Just like someone who is over the weight limit in boxing or wrestling. She doesn't fit the criteria for the women's division. Sucks for her. It isn't her fault. But there is a women's division so like women can compete against each other.

Either there should be an intersex and transgender division or she should compete in the open or men's division if she doesn't want to take something to lower her testosterone level.

But it is much easier for people to try to be all inclusive and think they are fighting for equal rights when they are changing the women's division to intersex and women's division.

Nothing morally wrong with being intersex. That isn't the issue. She just doesn't qualify for the women's division.
 
jeffk said:
She is XY. XX indicates female. XY does not indicate male. It indicates intersex or male.

I cannot believe how many people on twitter are saying this is a racial issue or comparing her to Michael Phelps.

The issue is does she fit within the criteria of a female division competitor?

I would say having a much higher level of testosterone and being XY makes her ineligible for the restricted women's division. Just like someone who is over the weight limit in boxing or wrestling. She doesn't fit the criteria for the women's division. Sucks for her. It isn't her fault. But there is a women's division so like women can compete against each other.

Either there should be an intersex and transgender division or she should compete in the open or men's division if she doesn't want to take something to lower her testosterone level.

But it is much easier for people to try to be all inclusive and think they are fighting for equal rights when they are changing the women's division to intersex and women's division.

Nothing morally wrong with being intersex. That isn't the issue. She just doesn't qualify for the women's division.
Click to expand...
Yeah I said earlier that if she's XY, that's a wrap. She can't fairly compete with women. The idea of lowering her testosterone seems dangerous and also won't solve the problem of her having the body of a man.
 
It is surprising how few articles say she is XY.

This article by a running website covers the issue.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/0...-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

It was generally accepted by people following the case closely that Semenya was XY, but now it’s been confirmed as fact since the CAS press release specifically says, “The DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to athletes with ’46 XY DSD’ – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes.” If she wasn’t XY, the IAAF’s regulations wouldn’t apply to her and she’d have no reason to challenge them.
 
they arent even medical doctors; they have their PhDs is anthropology and sociology. they are pseudoscientists at best because despite years of studies regarding testosterone, they make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo to fit their narrative
 
i’m glad the New York Times finally cleared this up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,700
Messages
55,435,841
Members
174,774
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top