There ARE Three Genders? A Cold War Conspiracy!

Shifting to more lighthearted fare, Mel Magazine debunks the science of testosterone. One wouldn’t think the concept “there are only two genders” would be an unpopular view, on grounds that you can see the sex chromosomes under a microscope and everybody loves !science!.

Or so I thought. Turns out that female athletes have been forced to compete against Mutant Privilege since at least 1950, and yes indeed, there was a Russian conspiracy to steal the election Olympics.

EVERYTHING WE THINK WE KNOW ABOUT TESTOSTERONE IS PRETTY MUCH WRONG

Everything We Think We Know About Testosterone Is Pretty Much Wrong

By Tracy Moore, 16 September 2019.

The way we talk about testosterone, you’d think it was man juice in a bottle.

Yes.

After all, it’s in the balls and the boner. It’s in the beard, and it’s in the balding. It’s in the rage, and it’s in the aggression.

Yes, and?

And it’s in the life force itself: Men who undergo testosterone replacement therapy espouse its magical powers in providing an indisputable rush of “energy, strength, clarity, ambition, drive, impatience…

Happy Birthday to You - Waddles the Hamster - YouTube

…and above all, horniness.” It’s what makes men men, and women not-men. We’re not from Mars and Venus; we’re from Planets Testosterone and Estrogen. Right?

Right! Good girl, you did science today! Now go put your hamster in its cage before…

Not exactly. Recent studies and closer scrutiny of old research has begun to find more and more proof that while testosterone works some of the ways we thought, it doesn’t function all the ways we thought. For example, a new study has found that one theory explaining autism — that it’s the result of “extreme male brain” more into building and machines and less into empathizing, due to overexposure of the hormone prenatally — has no legs to stand on. Meanwhile, other studies similarly contradict many implications pegged to T: that it makes men more violent, more hairy and more muscular, period.

…it gets loose. But she’s right, testosterone does NOT lobotomize men into social dysfunction. She’s still doing !science! although she’s lost the distinction between methamphetamine and testosterone.

“All you have to think of [to see it doesn’t work this way] is the people you know. Like men who are really big in the shoulders but can’t build up their legs,” explains Rebecca Jordan-Young, co-author of Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography.

Hyphenated last name? I bet she’s co-author of My Abusive Ex-husband: An Unauthorized Libel. Let’s check.

Hormones don’t create ‘male’ and ‘female’ brains - Health & Science - Jerusalem Post

OMG. She began life female, now identifies as Harvard-sexual. Not reported as married? Huh. What this androgyne doesn’t know about sex hormones is EVERYTHING!

Wikipedia: “Rebecca M. Jordan-Young (born 1963), is an American sociomedical scientist whose research focuses on sex, gender and sexuality, as well as the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS. She is the Tow Associate Professor for Distinguished Scholars and the Chair of the Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College. Jordan-Young completed her undergraduate work at Bryn Mawr College.”

Pronounced “Burn More” College? She must be able to use her own blood for her HIV research.

“Some of that is just where the receptors are located in the body. In a lot of people, there’s a different density in the receptors in the lower and upper body. Think about someone with a whole lot of facial and arm hair, the guy who has to shave a ring around his neck to tell his chest hair from his beard. That guy is just as likely to be scrawny. You can’t predict testosterone based on one feature that somebody has, because how much the body will use testosterone for other things is also testosterone dependent. It’s confusing, because it’s not linear.”

Translation, there’s a behavior component to the body acting on testosterone. You can’t muscle up just by injecting juice or going through puberty, which every gym rat and couch potato knew before this multi-degreed, lifetime professional did.

“Sex is a really interesting arena,” [the androgyne] continues. “Testosterone is important for sexual function, but at the same time, you don’t need very much at all. There is a very, very low threshold effect that, above that, more testosterone doesn’t do anything more for sexual function. You can have low testosterone below clinical thresholds and still have perfectly good sexual function, making sperm, having erections and all the tissue function can be fine. That’s been clear for a long time — more T doesn’t make you a better lover or more libidinous. It’s not a linear effect, there’s just a little bit that’s necessary.”

Translation, ALL men need sex not just the gym rats. Did anybody ever claim horniness was measurable in ng/mL?

That exaggeration of the relationship between testosterone and male sexuality is complicated by our desire for testosterone and estrogen to explain male and female, end stop.

HER desire to reduce sexuality to mere hormones. If masculinity won’t go away even at T=0 then there’s more to killing all men than hormone blockers in our breakfast cereal.

“This whole idea of sex hormones is this binary,” Jordan-Young explains. “When the so-called sex hormones were discovered, it wasn’t that they were discovered and experiments were done and observations to see what they actually do, and it turned out that testosterone controlled masculinity and estrogen controlled femininity. It was the opposite; scientists were looking to find what substance in the body cause masculinity and femininity to develop, and approached it with a very binary ideal that when they found them, they’d be sex specific — only the male in male bodies, only the female in female bodies — and that they would cancel each other out, and be antagonistic.”

Except those experiments have been done, thank you LGBT community and MISPWOSO. !Science! confirmed us, which is why our universities are now replacing physicists with homosexual witch doctors. Science just isn’t working out for the Godless anymore.

One clear place we haven’t been able to get past it is sports, particularly the idea that testosterone directly explains male superiority in sports performance over women, and is the key to athletic performance, which Jordan-Young and her co-author Katrina Karkazis recently addressed in a New York Times op-ed about the Court for Arbitration for Sport’s recent ruling that women with naturally high testosterone couldn’t compete as women.

We must allow male transgenders to compete with women! But now my Princess can’t win at football like I did when the Beatles were new… how can we square this circle? By banning man-juice!

And on that note, the proverbial light bulb turned on that this post isn’t talking about getting rid of men without getting rid of trannies. It’s talking about how to accept male transgenders as women in competitive sports despite the problem that they’re still biologically men.

Sheesh, First World Problems.

I’ll skip the path and give you the destination, a Soviet Russian conspiracy courtesy of the Wayback Machine.

Gender Verification No More?

https://web.archive.org/web/20170604052201/http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/OlympicGenderTesting.html

Myron Genel, MD

[Medscape Women’s Health 5(3), 2000. Copyright 2000 Medscape, Inc.]

While there has been abundant publicity regarding the testing of Olympic athletes for use of prohibited performance-enhancing substances, [GQ: testosterone specifically] it is not well known that for more than 30 years the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required all female competitors to undergo “gender verification.” The purported rationale is to detect male imposters who would have an unfair competitive advantage.

In point-of-fact, genuine imposters have not been uncovered [GQ: although a few athletes have been stripped of their awards]; however, gender verification procedures have resulted in substantial harm to a number of unassailable women athletes born with relatively rare genetic abnormalities that affect development of the gonads or the expression of secondary sexual characteristics.

That’s the first time I ever saw a sentence give equal time to “unassailable women athletes” and “rare genetic abnormalities”.

In part, the controversy over gender verification reflects the increasing popularity of women’s sports. The original Olympic Games in ancient Greece were limited to men, who competed in the nude. Women spectators were prohibited.

The obvious and original gender test. A side note of history, it also screened Jews out of the competitions because they were circumcised and you couldn’t hide that while “buff”. Many eventual-Christians approved of Jewish morality at the time but were unwilling to convert because of the circumcision requirement, which would have ostracized them from games, public baths and… well, the ancients weren’t too hung up on modesty. I read the Crucifixion story a thousand times before grokking the implications of the soldiers casting lots for God’s underpants.

Anyway, that’s why Scripture called those Gentiles God-fearers. They revered God but for various reasons, didn’t chop their dicks off. Which God was thankfully okay with.

When the Olympic Games were revived in 1896, the founder, Baron Pierre de Coubertin, was opposed to any women competing, reflecting general cultural attitudes about the “weaker sex” that prevailed at the sunset of the Victorian era.

That’s one theory. Another is that women shouldn’t be encouraged to act like men.

Nineteen women competed, however, in the 1900 Olympic Games, and 57 in 1912; by 1960, in Rome, there were 610 female competitors.

During the past 4 decades, the number of women competing has increased substantially in both the winter and summer games, so that by the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta there were 3800 women athletes.

This reflects not only increased interest but also the inclusion of additional events for women, as antiquated notions regarding the suitability of women to compete in more strenuous competitive events, such as the marathon, have dissipated. The recent phenomenal success of the US World Cup soccer team provides yet another example of the increasing acceptance and popularity of women’s sports.

Back in 2000 he probably had no idea where we’d be in just two more decades. I sure didn’t.

The sociologic changes, improved training, and the attraction of more women into sports have naturally led to some striking improvement in athletic achievements by women.[4] For example, Joan Benoit‘s time for the marathon at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, the first year this event was run for women, would have beaten all men’s times before the 1956 Olympics. Women’s times in the swimming events are even closer to those of men. The women’s Olympic record in the 100-meter freestyle, set in 1992, would have beaten all men’s times before the 1964 Olympics, including the 1924 time of the legendary Johnny Weissmuller, by almost 5 seconds. The 1988 Olympic record in the women’s 400-meter freestyle would have beaten all men’s times before the 1972 Olympics, including the 1924 time of Johnny Weissmuller, by over a minute. Even more striking is the comparison of men and women in cross-country skiing, arguably an event that puts greater premium on agility and coordination as well as endurance. In the 15-kilometer race, the women’s Olympic record of 1994 would have beaten all men’s before 1992; in the 30-kilometer race, the women’s time in 1992 would have beaten men’s in all previous Olympic events.

What caused such remarkable progress in female achievement?

1. Women have always been as strong as men but insecure weak men successfully oppressed them for thousands of years.

2. Most Olympians before 1960 were not trained-from-childhood professional athletes.

3. Those “women” were either men or hyper-masculine mutants.

The evidence says… well… this is Joan Benoit:

Fields Medal winner Manjul Bhargava to give 2015 Commencement address, joining honorands Mark ...

I’m thinking #3. Maybe #2 also, but seriously #3. And I’m not alone:

In a number of instances, questions were raised regarding the “femininity” of highly successful female competitors, in particular during the Cold War era of competition between the United States and the former Soviet Union. These rumors were abetted by anecdotal reports of recognized athletes who were found to have varying degrees of intersexuality. In 1 case, a Polish sprinter with an apparent chromosomal mosaicism was stripped of her medals.

Ohmigawd, the comic books were right! The Communists bred supersoldier mutants in underground laboratories!

“Herr Doktor Klinefelter, we require zooper-men to beat the capitalist men at the Olympics!”

“That will be very difficult. Success may not be possible.”

“Useless dummkopf! To Siberia vit zu!”

“…But meanwhile, I can create super-women who can beat the capitalist women. Right away, in fact.”

“Very goot, very goot. I vill spare you from Siberia… zis time.”

*Doctor loads an extra Y chromosome into the IVF machine and goes to lunch.*

Three track and field champions who competed as women before World War II subsequently underwent reconstructive surgery and sex reassignment. These cases led to efforts to ensure that women competing at international events were in fact women, initially with rather crude and demeaning efforts at physical examination. In 2 instances, women athletes were required to parade nude before a panel of female physicians, and at another event women athletes were required to undergo direct gynecologic examination.

That doesn’t sound so bad. You reach the top of competitive athletics, you must expect some intrusive anti-cheating measures.

These initial crude attempts at gender verification were soon replaced by less direct measures: first, the use of a buccal smear for sex chromatin, which was implemented at the 1968 winter games in Grenoble on an experimental basis and formally adopted at the 1968 summer games in Mexico City. Until the last decade, this remained the standard for gender verification, notwithstanding that by the mid-1970s, the test was discarded by medical professionals as technically unreliable. More importantly, the test detected athletes who were unassailably feminine but who happened to have an XY chromosomal pattern.

That is not feminine. That’s male DNA.

Many of these individuals had variants of androgen resistance, either complete or partial — in which case, they are naturally resistant to the strength-promoting qualities of testosterone. Others had variants of XY gonadal dysgenesis. Ironically, the sex chromatin test would have permitted recognized males with an XXY karyotype, or Klinefelter’s syndrome, and XX males, who have a portion of the testicular determining gene (SRY) transposed onto the X chromosome, to compete.

Again, that’s male DNA. This doesn’t seem hard. If you don’t want us to lift your skirt then we screen for male DNA.

Concerns regarding the appropriateness of sex chromatin for gender verification were voiced continuously in the 1970s and 1980s, but their impact was limited because of the absence of information regarding the frequency of positive results and the subsequent diagnoses and follow-up. At virtually every Olympic event, however, abundant rumors circulated; in one instance, this author was informed that women athletes who were detected as “positive” were instructed to feign injuries or in some cases were actually fitted with casts. In 1 celebrated case, a Spanish hurdler, Maria Patino, was publicly disclosed after failing her femininity test during an event in Tokyo, at the cost of public disgrace and loss of her athletic scholarship. It took 2 years and the active intercession of a number of medical authorities for Ms. Patino, who has androgen
resistance, to be reinstated.

Circumstances such as these and the efforts of a number of dedicated professionals resulted in some changes by the early 1990s. This author has had the privilege of working with an international group of professionals, some of whom were convened by the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) for a Workshop on Methods of Femininity Verification held in late 1990 in Monte Carlo. Our group concluded that laboratory-based sex determination should be discontinued, a recommendation that was accepted shortly thereafter by the IAAF and subsequently by all but 4 of the international athletic federations. The IOC, however, instead replaced sex chromatin with DNA-based methods to detect Y chromosomal material, principally the SRY sex-determining locus on the Y chromosome, implementing this procedure at the 1992 winter games in Albertville.

Huh. I would’ve guessed the IOC would be the first to board the Tranny Train.

After the Atlanta Olympics, efforts continued to persuade the IOC to abandon gender verification. Indeed, by the time of the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta, essentially all of the relevant professional societies had endorsed resolutions that called for elimination of gender verification, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Endocrine Society, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, and the American Society of Human Genetics. It was argued that the current clothing used in athletic competition, as well as the requirement that urine for doping control be voided under direct supervision, made it virtually certain that male impostors could not escape detection; furthermore, gender verification procedures are complex, expensive, and counterproductive.

Oh, look at that. We’re back to the old school of gender determination, with the benefit of Spandex for modesty’s sake.

Still, it was not until the IOC’s Athletes’ Commission called for discontinuation of the IOC system of gender verification that the IOC’s executive board, at its June 1999 meeting… I truly hope that the IOC’s decision will become permanent with the conclusion of the Sydney games and that laboratory verification of the gender of female athletes will reside in the historical chronicles of the Olympic Games together with competition in the nude of their ancient male predecessors.

Rebecca Jordan-Young is a successor of his in the field of debunking laboratory gender determination. Unlike Myron who (re-)reached a valid testing methodology, however, Becky has been wrong for thousands of years.

I once joked that I would accept a third gender of Mutant if wimminz had notes from their doctor. They called my bluff… I double down! There are THREE genders: male, female and mutant! Congratulations, you abnormal freaks, you are now abnormal freaks by definition!

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s