Transgender man wins women's 100 yd and 400 yd freestyle races.

Not a great argument, unless he is also arguing against DNA testing generally and in the criminal justice system in particular, for the same reason.

DNA testing in the criminal justice system is very different from the genetic testing that's being carried out for the purposes of detecting the presence of the Y chromosome though? It's only an issue in these circumstances if the person examining a sample has a Y chromosome themselves. In any case, I'd be more concerned about data protection and how athletes personal data is being used, stored, controlled, y'know, all that sort of craic that's about ethics and legislation that is now the responsibility of national governing bodies -

Sports DNA Testing | optimize athletic performance | Sport genetic testing | DNA testing in India

(I like that you can pick up a little something at their gift shop for your loved ones… I mean, that's if they actually are your loved ones… 😬)

The 1990 paper referenced, coinned the term SRY (The Sex determining gene Y). Which sounds like back in 1990, the author didn't have the same qualms they acquired later.

I'm not sure what you mean here? The qualms they have now are because organisations like World Athletics are misrepresenting their work in order to support a policy which is not supported by science. The discovery of the SRY gene and the coining of it isn't the issue, it's the bastardisation of science by World Athletics that's the issue.

In any case, the trouble is scientists can be too close to the wood to see the trees in big questions like this. As I said before, when you look at anything under a microscope it always reveals more complexity and the possibility for exceptions and how they arise, becomes clearer.

Another thing I've said before, is this is first and foremost a philosophical question and precious few philosophers who should know better, have been prepared to weigh in. Does a category (like biological woman) cease to exist, or should it at least be suppressed because it can be hard to define at the margins, and instead we use alternatives that are easier to define? And what concept of woman could be easier to define than - a woman is anyone who says they are? As we've found out since 2015 that way of thinking only creates other problems, due to the fact that the biological distinction, actually matters, even if there are hard cases at the margins.

I don't imagine anyone is too keen to muse on Schrodinger's woman tbh, not sure why you imagine philosophers' opinions should carry any greater weight than numerous international human rights laws and conventions which recognise a people's right to self-determination already, and have done for decades, certainly long before 2015. It means that people have the right to determine for themselves who and what they are, and are not beholden to either the opinions of scientists or philosophers. But if that's your bag, sure, knock yourself out, it's an emerging field in philosophy -

Trans Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The question of whose DNA is actually being tested occurs across all uses of the technology. There are safeguards against it. I mean in the case of a sports swab, and if someone gets an unexpected result, do you seriously think that's the end of it? Well, maybe it is for someone who knows they are the "wrong" sex. What are the chances that a tester will contaminate your sample, with their own cells, when you actually need it? Anyone else can get a second test done or a third. Sooner or later, a pattern will emerge.

I don't mean to be awkward, but I'm not sure what you mean by that first sentence, as the people testing the samples aren't aware of whose sample it is they're testing. That's one of the safeguards. I know it's not the end of it, as athletes are aware that they can appeal to CAS. What are the chances a tester will contaminate a sample with their own cells? About as high as the chances of detecting a Y chromosome. The pattern that emerges is the same as the pattern that emerged previously -

At the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, eight of 3,387 women athletes had positive test results for a Y chromosome. Of these, seven were resistant to testosterone.

My reference to the author of that paper's qualms is they literally called the gene they found the "sex determining gene", ie the gene that determines sex. Scientists are experts in their field, and as someone said "experts" are people who learn more and more about less and less, until eventually they know everything about nothing .. Which is an amusing way of saying that good scientists are usually very careful about what they say, and they are really no more qualified than anyone to comment on the ethical implications of what they have found.

I see what you're saying now - that the naming of the gene they found in the sex region as the gene that determines sex is the issue. It's not, and that's not what Sinclair has qualms about. His qualms are based on the fact that World Athletics assertion is overly simplistic -

World Athletics asserts the SRY gene is a reliable proxy for determining biological sex. But biological sex is much more complex, with chromosomal, gonadal (testis/ovary), hormonal and secondary sex characteristics all playing a role.

Using SRY to establish biological sex is wrong because all it tells you is whether or not the gene is present.

It does not tell you how SRY is functioning, whether a testis has formed, whether testosterone is produced and, if so, whether it can be used by the body.

World Athletics obviously doesn't care whether their claims are overly simplistic, all they care about is the presence of a Y chromosome being sufficient to see athletes prohibited from competition for life.

Philosophers are supposed to help us answer the big questions and see the big picture. Like what happens when one individual's "human rights" starts to impinge on the rights of larger groups? How do we even define what is and isn't a human right? Cynics might point about that the ECtHR would have had to be shut down decades ago if they didn't keep finding new ones..

I'm not sure why human rights is in inverted commas there, the Courts address questions of competing rights every day, and evaluate whether or not individuals or groups human rights have been violated. Why should anyone care what philosophers and cynics think? It's politicians who make laws, and the Courts which interpret them, no need to go reinventing the wheel just because some people object to other people having the same rights as they do.

Like the jokes about the male athlete getting an unexpected positive pregnancy test as part of his drug testing results?

Sort of (the version I heard of that joke was this, never happened either but it's a good story for a market research company!), but moreso how the results of athletes tests are leaked to the media, and their policies on retention of athletes personal data, like for life? I'm pretty sure there's going to be legal action pursued about that in the future.

Those drug screening tests are seriously invasive: they now have to pee in the presence of an official to prevent there being any question of whose blood and urine is being tested. And not just once, as for the sex screening - it's whenever, wherever, and as often as the sports authority deems relevant. As to the security of the results, all the same issues apply there as they do for sex screening.

Two different purposes though, both claiming to be legitimate aims. For drug testing the urine and blood sampling is considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I mean, they could also use the same samples to determine sex, but that's not the purpose for which the samples are collected and used. Sex screening is a lot more definitive than drug testing and has far greater implications for the individual and for society. It's why the ethics of it are far more questionable and why it's illegal for non-medical purposes in several countries, precisely because of the ethical implications -

Sex determination networks continue to operate despite decades of prohibition | YourStory

Ramanagar Government Hospital Radiologist Suspended for Illegal Sex Determination Test

I read the whole paragraph already, that’s why I’m saying I can’t make sense of the first sentence, because the people doing the testing aren’t aware of whose DNA it is they’re testing. They’re just looking for the presence of a Y chromosome in the sample and nothing more. They don’t need to know whose DNA it is they’re testing. It’s why if a sample is contaminated, it may produce a false positive result, or it may not, if the person doing the testing themselves doesn’t have a Y chromosome.

Just watched to video above ^ and it just seems like people were carried along in a mood / on a wave, that when studied retrospectively seems nonsensical.

The word Zeitgeist applies perfectly to this ideological wave, as it swept the western world, starting with the Anglosphere, and then spreading out like a tsunami. But now the tide is turning and people are realising like "how did we ever believe that in the first place"? Like how did we ever think it was ok for men to self identify as women, and then compete against women & girls in sport.

It is bonkers when you think about it.

Just watched to video above ^ and it feeds into the theory that people seemed to be carried along on a move or a wave, that when studied retrospectively seems nonsensical.

And does that same theory apply to the current ‘Zeitgeist’ that Gladwell now espouses after all his previous theories when retrospectively examined were debunked as nonsense? Yours is certainly a theory that Gladwell would be delighted to popularise given his propensity for oversimplification which suits whatever proposal he is making whenever he makes it, hence his apologetics nonsense about his previous positions - plays well with his new set of fwends given his old fwends no longer find him interesting.

The only thing was ever interesting about him as far as I could see was his relationship to Colin Powell who was originally opposed to homosexuals serving in the US Military, and he too changed his position (no idea how much of that was due to retrospection on his part though) -

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/clinton-documents-gays-in-the-military-111784

And then there are other people who, when confronted with evidence which contradicts their beliefs, will incorporate that evidence into their beliefs without missing a beat, even when it’s as nonsensical as their original position. An example of that were people who submitted DNA tests to prove their genetic purity… things got awkward real fast:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6939152/

Yes, but who's going to test them, to make sure they ARE women...

I know nothing about Gladwell other than his appearance in the post above mine, but his point is valid to the issue at hand, re how the Zeitgeist has changed in just a year or two, or three. The veil has lifted, the confusion over, human biology rules once again in the sporting arena 👍️

No more men in women's sport, which I know is boring for you, but Se la vie me old sausage.

That’s my point - very few people were aware of his existence a couple of years ago, then he fell off the radar completely when he was interesting to nobody. Now he’s found a new bandwagon and has to kiss arse with those whom he previously would have been critical of in order to receive grace. Happens to many new converts to an ideology - the new ideology is the best thing since sliced pan. I wouldn’t make too much of it, let alone any zeitgeist nonsense.

No more men in women's sport, which I know is boring for you, but Se la vie.

You're mixing everything up though, Jack: nobody is going to force a woman to have an abortion based on her own sex screening results, and there's no risk of the numbers of baby boys to baby girls being born going completely awry, as has happened in China and some parts of India. Because "legitimate aims", as you say yourself.

That’s the thing though - just because someone claims that a particular policy is intended to achieve a legitimate aim, whatever that aim may be, doesn’t mean it is justifiable. I was only intending to present examples of why sex testing is unethical, which is why it’s illegal. Sports organisations aren’t exempt from the laws of the society in which sports organisations operate, so just because they claim their policies are intended to achieve a legitimate aim, that doesn’t make their policies any more justified or acceptable than they aren’t already.

Protecting women's sport from males exploiting the system is a legitimate aim. Just as legitimate as protecting it from drugs. You may not think it's legitimate, but you're not a woman. Nor a sports authority.

I’m not, but what I am, and what we all are, is human beings, which is why attempting to exclude anyone who doesn’t share your opinion just doesn’t carry any weight in terms of a policy which someone finds objectionable on the grounds that it’s a violation of human rights standards. By your logic we’d both have to exclude ourselves as neither of us is transgender and to the best of my knowledge, neither of us have a DSD. I mean, that’d just be super awkward 😂

Some 46,XX individuals, however, do not have the SRY gene (SRY-negative); the reason a male phenotype develops is poorly understood, and subject to further research.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome