zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
Inclusivity, because you can then lay claim any dispute of facts of an article are instead a dispute that only exists because one side is bigoted, racist, or other such nonsense, and actually only disagrees because they do not accept the person posting the disputed fact.

It is one of the main methods of cancel culture, by portraying any disagreement as based in identity differences there can be no functional discussion of the facts at hand

>>Shivet+UB
> bigoted, racist, or other such nonsense

Can you clarify how one side or another in a discussion being bigoted or racist is nonsense?

>>shadow+wE
The claim that it's bigoted or racist is nonsense, not being bigoted or racist.

>>0-_-0+5G
I don't think I follow. Can you provide an example of such a discussion that has happened?

>>shadow+FG
In general? I guess a good example would be transgender athletes. This is a controversial subject but a reasonable argument can be made that people who grew up with higher levels of testosterone have an unfair advantage over people who didn't. This concern is often dismissed as bigotry. This fits the above description that said "portraying any disagreement as based in identity differences there can be no functional discussion of the facts at hand"

>>0-_-0+rK
Thank you. I think that's a good example. For instance, I don't think I understand why people would want to ban those who were born identifying male from athletics because they have more testosterone than those born identifying female. Clearly, if the hormone levels are the issue, they should just sample the hormones of athletes at some point in their developmental process and ban anyone with too much testosterone from the womans' events, regardless of their gender identity. Identify as a woman but your testosterone levels are outside 1-sigma from average at 13? Sorry; doesn't matter if you were born a woman and have always thought of yourself as a woman, you're banned from Olympic Women's Pole Vault for life.

>>shadow+UR
Thank you for your attempt. But:

> Clearly, if the hormone levels are the issue, they should just sample the hormones of athletes at some point in their developmental process

Of course hormone levels are the issue, that's why we don't allow the use of human growth hormone and testosterone at the Olympics. It's called doping. And your proposed solution is completely impractical. In addition, your phrasing "if the hormone levels are the issue" seems to contain a veiled accusation of bigotry by suggesting that the actual issue is something else.

> Identify as a woman but your testosterone levels are outside 1-sigma from average at 13? Sorry;

Using 1-sigma in your example is a straw man. Normal female range is 15 to 70 ng/dL, normal male range is 300-1200. I suggest that if anyone has a testosterone level of 300 or more they should not be allowed to compete with women (but with that level of testosterone a human body would likely not develop as a female body in the first place). This should only apply to sports where testosterone is a direct advantage, e.g. there's no issue with a trans athlete competing in women's chess. Then again, I don't think they check for testosterone doping in chess competitions either.

See how much more difficult it is to discuss this issue without resorting to accusations of bigotry? That itself is the problem: We can't even sort these kind of problems out as a society because the conversations are shut down before they could begin.

>>0-_-0+hk1
With respect, I don't see where you're seeing an accusation of bigotry; I certainly didn't intend one. You agreed hormone levels are the issue; how is "if hormone levels are the issue" a veiled accusation of bigotry?

> Using 1-sigma in your example is a straw man. Normal female range is 15 to 70 ng/dL, normal male range is 300-1200

My error; I was speaking from pure hypotheticals without knowledge of how the numbers break down. The regulations from IAAF (and the research from the IAAF) indicates "About seven in every 1,000 elite female athletes have high testosterone levels." (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190212160030.h...)

Still, their stance seems odd... That a person with naturally-occurring testosterone should be required to take suppressing hormones. If the goal is to see "natural" talent apart from doping, how does forcing athletes to take hormone suppressants satisfy that goal? It seems to pretty self-evidently be reverse-doping.

It's also unclear to me why the IAAF would consider higher levels of testosterone to be an advantage in need of intervention but not, say, being born at and training in a higher altitude, which we know increases lung capacity https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4175264/. We don't force athletes training in Santa Fe to train at lower altitudes for six months before an Olympics. Why treat testosterone levels differently?