Female athletes are still subjected to the equivalent of a sex test, based on whether they appear feminine.
https://t.co/V9Ggi6cJVH
More from Kirsti Miller
Would having the testosterone limit for transgender women at 10nmol/L (5-10 times what’s considered “typical” for women) give them a massive advantage over their cisgender opponents?
Absolutely not, is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.
Which we know too, the individual falls into menopause at 9.6nmol/L, and due to complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.
We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX and or XY competing internationally like this.
This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate longterm.
XX women do not have their endogenous testosterone levels regulated in any sport. They can and do compete with T levels well into the normal male range around 13.7%. XX receptors are also 10 times more sensitive to T than an XY this could also be seen as unfair. https://t.co/PiERbwBxEP
— Kirsti Miller (@KirstiMiller30) January 28, 2021
Absolutely not, is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.
Which we know too, the individual falls into menopause at 9.6nmol/L, and due to complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.
We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX and or XY competing internationally like this.
This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate longterm.
More from Sport
You May Also Like
“We don’t negotiate salaries” is a negotiation tactic.
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
Always. No, your company is not an exception.
A tactic I don’t appreciate at all because of how unfairly it penalizes low-leverage, junior employees, and those loyal enough not to question it, but that’s negotiation for you after all. Weaponized information asymmetry.
Listen to Aditya
"we don't negotiate salaries" really means "we'd prefer to negotiate massive signing bonuses and equity grants, but we'll negotiate salary if you REALLY insist" https://t.co/80k7nWAMoK
— Aditya Mukerjee, the Otterrific \U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@chimeracoder) December 4, 2018
And by the way, you should never be worried that an offer would be withdrawn if you politely negotiate.
I have seen this happen *extremely* rarely, mostly to women, and anyway is a giant red flag. It suggests you probably didn’t want to work there.
You wish there was no negotiating so it would all be more fair? I feel you, but it’s not happening.
Instead, negotiate hard, use your privilege, and then go and share numbers with your underrepresented and underpaid colleagues. […]
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.