> The attention this topic receives is disproportionate considering how rare we are, especially close to the Olympics level.

We all remember state-sponsored doping scandals from the 60s where iron curtain nations invested heavily on medical research and experiments on prospective athletes to try to get medals. It's not hard to understand how badly this would turn out to be if the same sort of unscrupulous regime could just abuse this loophole to seek the same benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_East_Germany

As far as I see, this issue is only tangentially related to transgender rights.

> As far as I see, this issue is only tangentially related to transgender rights.

It affects the rights of transgender people, so it is directly related to transgender rights. Also, I don't at all think that it's coincidence that people spreading hate about transgender people are the same ones so concerned about this particular issue?

People spreading hate and prejudice always have <reasons>.

> We all remember state-sponsored doping scandals from the 60s

We all do? People born in the 1950s or earlier might remember, making them at least 65 years old. I've never heard of it from people of any age. In any case, it's hard to connect this 60 year old issue with today's decision.

If an unscrupulous regime wanted to get medals with that method they'd just give cis women testosterone during puberty. Nothing about the new trans-exclusionary standards would deter that.

No XY chromosome no SRY gene. You're left with validating that someone's entire development was done in the absence of testosterone, which would--if even possible--require incredibly invasive and extensive testing.

You don't have to go back that far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_Russia

That's a weird take. How bad do you imagine it going?

[flagged]