CharonY

Yes I was referring to that study earlier, too (I only posted a DOI of it). There are other surveys, though often from non elite athletes, and one exclusively from runners, which showed more separation. It is a bit messy overall. I would like also to highlight your earlier point that sex verification has been an issue for female athletes for a rather long time, often to their detriment. Likewise, the scientific validity has been questions for basically as long, if one looks at the literature on that topic. Potentially the ideological shift of the broader population towards inclusion, rather than exclusion to resolve these issues, will fuel more research on that matter to create better evidence-based guidelines.

All levels are to some degree arbitrary. At best standards represent the bulk but not every individual, which is where the discussion really has shifted to. I.e. in the past the assumption if we got most of folks squared away that is good enough, the rest has to fall by the sidelines. Now the question has become how can we be more inclusive (which IMO is a real generational change in attitude). That being said, initial testosterone limits were in part based on some screening studies which showed gaps in testosterone levels (and excluding at least one study, it seems, which showed overlap). The secondary fight is then the role of testosterone in performance. The latter is going to turn into a very sport-specific discussion eventually (as noted, testosterones levels varied quite a bit by top athletes in different sports and some found negative correlations, e.g. in cyclists and female weightlifters) . By the way, do you have an article (perhaps I have missed it) suggesting that trans-athletes have troubles hitting the guideline thresholds? What I have read seemed to suggest that levels are "typically" reached after two years of transitioning. I am curious to see whether there is more info out there.

It is basically both. The opening of channels is first analog (i.e. neurotransmitter bind to receptors and trigger opening of ion channels). Depending on how many and which channels are opened or closed, the potential of the membranes changes accordingly. This then changes once a certain threshold of depolarization is crossed as then a positive feedback kicks in, resulting in the action potential. So one could see it as an analog phase first which can then become digital. The signal that travels distally across the axon is the digital component that then results in release of neurotransmitters, where the analog part at the next neuron starts.

Was curious about that lock and found this video on a simpler series: But at that price perhaps stealing the lock becomes worthwhile

So it seems you are advocating to drop scientific rigor whenever you feel like it. I am pretty sure that if you have bag with 1000 skittles and just one is deadly, you would just assume that the whole bag is safe, too. I mean, it is just nitpicking.

As characterized throughout the whole thread, definitions vary a fair bit in various uses and precise language is needed if one wants to discuss this issue. Throwing something as vague sex characteristics muddies the waters even more, as especially here we actually do have a broader range of quantitative features. While highly associated with each other, there are numerous genetic traits that make this difficult. E.g. there are cases of XY karyotypes (typically male) with testosterone insensitivity which results in testosterone levels associated with human males, but with female sexual organs. I think JCM's link shows a very nice example of a true binary classification (i.e. gamete types), but also highlights the problem to extend it beyond its specific use (i.e. if we are not exclusively classifying it based on reproductive capacity). The main issue is really not whether there are sex-based classifications or not. There clearly are. But the issue that folks keep missing is that those are not universal. And as such it is necessary to clearly outline the specific contexts in which they apply (or don't apply). That is the crux here. From a classification standpoint, if the claim is universality what minority there is highlights that there is something else going on. You cannot claim that the physical world is entirely Newtonian just with some exceptions on the side. The exceptions can be ignored in many cases, but not in others. What one cannot claim is that they don't exist and hence the classification is universal. Even if you say there is male/female and asexual/others, that is three. It is only binary (for the most part) if you specifically use it in the context anisogamic reproduction.

I got a set of lockpicks and played with a few padlocks I had. I didn't rake them as I wanted to avoid damage, but I was surprised how quickly you can pick them even without training. And raking would have been likely as effective but only taking seconds.

As a corollary to 1. it makes the target less attractive compared to unsecured targets. Even if built sturdy, many padlocks (especially in the low to mid-price range) can be picked by simple raking (a simple technique that often only takes seconds).

Your link, didn't you read it? They assert that: They elaborate on this, but the point is that: I.e. if biological sex is a process, we cannot use it to categorize individual persons as a whole throughout all the stages of their life. I.e. trying to apply it would mean to classify a menopausal woman to a different biological sex as she was before. Also the binary classification would exclude sterile/asexual individuals, which makes sense to a certain degree from an population evolutionary viewpoint. But it becomes useless on an individual level (remember in evolution we think about populations, not individuals). I.e. they assert that there are only two biological sexes in humans (large and small gametes), yet they also say that we cannot use it for the types of classification we try to do it here, at which point the authors point to the use of gender, instead. Also important to note, the authors make not claims regarding other sexual features beyond gamete development, in fact, they assert they can change between species or even within species throughout their lifetime.

Yes, but that makes it a singular factor like testosterone rather dubious. And again, we are switching between elite sports (which is part of OP) and the biology a fair bit through the thread a fair bit. And as your link actually argues, the biological concept of sex (regardless whether one agrees with the author's definition or not) is not really helpful or applicable to human questions (such as sports). And for the latter, the key element is still more information. Studies are indicating that testosterone as sole indicator is too weak to assess risks, for example. Clearly in sports like boxing better indicators appear to be weight, and muscle mass, for example. And if there are better indicators, it would be time to ditch traditional but inferior methods. Some of the papers measuring testosterone levels among athletes are arguing that precisely. For example: There was a recent paper suggesting that testosterone might have been a factor in male performance (or something to that effect) but then they issued a correction and stated that they actually do not have the data to suggest that (as they did not measure other data such as LBM (lean body mass) as the paper above. As suggest previously, depending on the types of sports it might be worthwhile to look at a) demographic input and b) potential indicators for class formation (e.g. using LBM or other factors as appropriate). Demographics can be important as some sports may have large differences in term of participation. Different groups are then sometimes created not because of performance differences, but to strengthen participation. Trans folks are more likely to cross categories that way, but at least they would not be fundamentally excluded based on assumptions. I.e. there is a need for evidence-based inclusion strategies rather than assuming things and then go from there.

If we look at this individual dimension and ignore e.g. the fact that individuals can react very differently to the same hormonal levels). Problem is data is scarce for the few that do not fit the binary definition. That being said, there are profiles in athletes and some indicate overlap between male and demale athletes in the extremes. https://doi.org/10.1111/cen.12445. However other cohorts show less overlap and there was one study with longitudinal showing overlaps when one considers the fluctuations through life but I think. But that is only part of the issue. The other is that folks have different sensitivity to hormones. In the extreme case e.g. insensitivity to testosterone leads to development of female features. In sports they tried to implement a testosterone threshold, but now several women have run afoul of it without any drugs (just genetics). And finally, because bodies react differently there is still no clear correlation between testosterone level and performance. Athlete surveys don't show that top performers have the highest levels, and there seem to differences between disciplines (power lifters were among the lowest in testosterone in the male group, iirc).

Sorry, cross-posted, and added some more details. But overall I think that the authors attempted to simplify the model, which, in for all purposes has worked fairly well. But more recent research focusing on aspects of sexual selection and evolution of sex has put some dampers on prior assumptions. I am no expert in this field, so I cannot interpret the whole situation accurately, but depending on how good the data and experiments are, (some of which are at least mentioned in the paper I linked above), there might be a broader rethinking needed. But that is nature of science, the more details we get, the more we chisel on grand old concepts.

I think the idea was to reframe into a gamete specific discussion, but then they kind of got selective and used a fair bit of handwaving without getting into the necessary weeds. The paper I linked picked up on those bits. But I would still characterize the whole discussion as "what is useful" rather than "what is true" and perhaps ironically they claim anthropocentrism as the reason for this issue, but at the same time they use the same to form their argument and kind if try to simplify things down. I.e. if an organism changes its sex it is clearly still a binary situation, either they produce ova or sperm. Yet developmental it is not necessarily a full switch. They say that beyond humans there are all kind of changes from being both, to switching between asexual and sexual reproduction or have no sexual reproduction at all. That is all true, but unclear why that would be an argument for binary states? They then further argue that sex can be a stage in life, and they say that But it does not appear that the follow up on what it means to the definitions we use under these assumptions. I.e. a menopausal person would then be considered, well asexual, I suppose as they would never produce ova or sperm. They do acknowledge that these definitions therefore are not great to describe the human condition (i.e. applying those concepts would define things very differently, as in my example) but ultimately fail to support why then all things considered a binary definition would be useful.

I don't think that science would be necessarily poorer, at least not directly. Though science popularizers can indirectly improve science by raising general interest (though I have the feeling that things are getting a bit worse now). Many scientists I know are more of the nose to grindstone types of folks and they (we) are often a bit suspicious of the more showy scientists. Generally speaking, I tend to be a bit more suspicious of highly charismatic or influential folks as there is always the risk that their work faces a bit less scrutiny than junior scientists. I.e. the persona might at some point start to influence their science.

l and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles Abstract Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non-human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”" Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area. 99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY. I like the fact that you are citing a paper (I really appreciate it) and it is true that there are discussions on this area in the scientific community. I won't bemoan that this an essay, as this discussion likely has to be at least partially argued outside of a more data-driven discussion. Since the paper is still very fresh, there is not a lot of follow-up, but I will put in here one alternative view on it.: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v2.abstract The paper does provide a nice summary of the gamete-centric approach (apologies for the line counts). This is especially relavant as Goyman et al. argue about the scientific necessity of collapsing those terms. I.e. the base argument is not about what is "true" but what scientifically useful (an important distinction). A more philosophical/conceptional approach to this question can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.86 And an evolutionary view that questions the strong link between gamete dimorphism and and assumption of sexes can be seen here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.013 While the latter is not necessarily a reject of binary biological sex definitions as such, it questions some of the basic tenets that make a binary definition useful for biological sciences. But again, to avoid any confusion, the discussion here (found JCM's link) is rooted in a gamete-focused definition of sex (i.e. not karyotype, sex chromosomes etc.), which is often used in science, but less in common parlance. Here the definition is base on the size of gametes produced by a group (e.g. small like sperm or large like an ovum). The papers I added discuss why even with this definition things are trickier than outlined in the essay. Also, the definition is centered around an evolutionary view (in terms of e.g. establishing and maintaining gamete dimorphism), sterile organisms are not present in this category. There is quite a bit to wade into scientifically, but it this actually shows that scientifically the distinction is not quite as trivial and straightforward as we have learned, especially when we want to find an universal (biological) system or model.

I should also add that the pandemic might have increased levels in at least some jurisdictions as infections have been associated with increased risk of developing either Type I or II diabetes. But considering the baseline, it is also very possible that the levels have not moved much.

You should re-read StringJunky's excellent response. We define things based on context, adding the moniker "true" does not make them more specific. Karyotype-based definitions are fine in many, if not most contexts, so do phenotypic definitions (e.g. based on presence of genitalia). The fact that one needs to add a "besides" in a categorization clearly shows the lack of rigidity as an universal system. This is something to keep in mind (i.e. don't confuse the model with the reality). For sports, the phenotype is going to be more important (as the karyotype alone does not define physicality) but there focusing on genitalia alone is a bit weird, as I do not know of any official sports where these are used. As mentioned before, other sex-associated attributes (hormonal levels, muscle mass etc.) are under investigation to figure out suitable categories, which in my mind seems to be more geared to solving the issue than trying to figure out what a "true" man or woman is. If there is a person with a XY karyotype (or has a penis) but is lightly built and with a low muscle to fat ratio then they probably should not be put into the same category as wherever Mike Tyson-type athletes would be put in. While this would eliminate most, if not all folks with an XX karyotype it is at least not based a priori on aspects unrelated to the issue themselves.

I get what you are saying, and it is a general issue in public health that folks tend to think in extremes (e.g. deaths) but forget about health burden, loss of quality of life, and associated cost and drain on the health care system. After all managing a a disease for decades is often more expensive than just dropping dead.

Well, I am not sure about corporate pressures. In some cases, where there is corporate funding or support, that could be the case, but often it is just the publish or perish pressure in academia that makes people fudge, encourage fudging or at least ignore evidence for fudging. Also remember in most labs much of the work is done by students who might not continue in the field but are desperate to graduate and/or postdocs who are desperate for a faculty job (or really, any job). There is a bit of a pattern here, I think. Medical research (which is very different from practice, but there also areas researching medical practice) is fundamentally biological, but requires higher precision and demands more impact than (but is also better funded) which may put more pressure on folks. At the same time I think it is quite self inflicted as medical research is also quite averse to fundamental research aspects, which could help creating a better foundation. Also the pessimist in me also sometimes thinks that stuff comes out more in medical research as there can be trials which ultimately invalidate results, whereas if someone messes up (knowingly or not) something regarding an exotic bacterium and has rather mundane results, know one would care to follow up.

The data is for total (including unclassified). But the vast majority is typeII.

Actually outright falsification (if done well) are really hard to spot in a peer-review process. While there are calls for open data to address these issues, there are a huge load of limitations (both structural and practical). There is no easy solutions, but one obvious red flag is the culture that he cultivated. If you force your team to get a specific result, well, there is a good chance that you get it, if you just demand hard enough... But I do agree, the fact that these issues are exposed is on a whole a good thing.

I am not sure why having a broad definition is an issue. In fact, it is rather necessary to assess health burden. I may be misunderstanding OP, but it sounds to me that it is potentially assumed that "chronic" is somewhat aligned with severity and should therefore be visible. However in this context the issue with chronic diseases is that they require ongoing management, regardless of severity. A lot of folks have hypertension, for example. Often it is well managed. Similarly, you would not easily notice folks with osteoathritis or osteoporosis other in their most extreme forms. Likewise, depression is a chronic disease, which has spiked a fair bit during the pandemic. And if you go down the list of common chronic diseases, it is rather easy to see how you would get to 40-60% of the population having at least one of the issues especially taking an aging (and/or overweight) population into account. It should also be noted that chronic disease information in various jurisdictions can vary or missing, so comparison between countries could be difficult. Some require multi-year treatment rather than 1yr to qualify, or could be based on self-reporting (as in some European databases). That being said, diabetes is a very strong indicator with enormous health burden and we can see here that the UK has a surprisingly low prevalence (about 4%), whereas Canada, Germany USA and Mexico are way higher (7.6, 10.4, 10.8 and 13.5).

So a person with gonadal dysgenesis (Swyer syndrome, fully developed female genitalia but XY karyotype) a real woman? Or a real man? Or do you consider them fake somehow?

That is the difference between a human classification system and what is in the natural world. Nature has all the variability, including non-viable, sterile and everything in-between. I.e. they exist. Our classification system is cruder and as you mentioned, mostly ignores rare conditions in most contexts. That does not make them non-existent. At minimum we have therefore XY, XX and one big box for all other configurations on the karyotpe level (which by my count exceeds two categories). It should be noted that this is not even all that determines the development of sexual organs. Folks with Swyer syndrome, for example have an XY karyotpe, but develop female genitalia. So the karyotype would be male, but the phenotype clearly female. Gender development is not fully genetic, but has strong developmental aspects. During childhood we develop something that we associate with our identity and including aspects like sexual orientation (which are further developed during puberty) but also gender identity. While there appear to be genetic dispositions (which are still under investigation), the link is likely quite a bit more complicated. As far as I can tell, no one decides out of the blue to be of a certain gender without some form of identify formed behind that.

Are you serious? Do you think that all the data in the papers I linked were gained from harmful interference? Do you think we should just assume things rather than quantify and measure actual differences?