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.
Testosterone determines speed and strength and transgender athletes will always have an advantage, Untrue, testosterone plays 200 key health roles in the human physiology separate of the sex of the body every single day.
day. It is not based on volume testosterone. It is based on the combination of genes, receptors and chromosomes. There are 40,000 genes in the human physiology,100 different receptor types. When combined, creates infinite possibilities separate of the sex of the body.
XX females androgen receptors designed by nature for the purpose of conception, are highly sensitive to testosterone requiring 6-10 times less to attain the same level of health of someone born XY chromosome.
An XY male becomes unwell at 9-12nimol/L androgens known as Hypogonadism. Requiring Androgen support to bring up levels to meet the needs of healthy body function.
The XX female functions healthy between nurtural testosterone levels 1-3nmol/L.  Below 1nmol/L XX women become unwell.
This illustrates the receptor uptake ability and sensitivity of XX females. XX women and XY women T levels should never be compared as the same; XX women always healthy XY women are the only women forced to compete in sport unhealthy, in a complete androgen deprivation state..
only athlete competing unwell as a prerequisite to participate in sport.
The XY transitioned female generates no hormones within an acute few years, then body goes into complete menopausal state; due to complete androgen deprivation creating 24 major contraindications the body no longer is able to support itself as protein cell synthesis ceases,
which is a key need and function of the human physiology which all high performance athlete require need to maintain health body and in mind.
The transitioned female is actually competing at a disadvantage and eventually will no longer be able to participate in high performance sport due to the bodies ability unable to support itself, putting the athlete at incredible risk.

More from Kirsti Miller

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like