and others want to make it out. The argument by you and your ilk has been for years that athletes should compete as the gender they were born as. Suddenly an athlete doesn't fit that criteria so you decide to move the goalposts to "XY chromosomes" (which I'll point out again we don't seem to know is true). Similarly, the reason other people brought up sex organs is that you and others like you have for years argued that "if they have a penis, they're a man". That's the indicator... until it's not. Seems like maybe you are the one having trouble defining a woman now huh? Meanwhile, the whole time I've basically been saying that biology and genetics is complicated. That in some cases there's a lot more nuance and gray area than people would like to admit. Then, lo and behold, an example of just that comes along and you want to act like I'm the one being anti-science? You're right... it is hilarious but it's because you're the joke. Speaking of four years ago... were you up in arms at the last Olympics when this same athlete competed and did not medal? I'm guessing no... because you don't get outraged until your puppeteers tell you to. What's not "silly" is you trying to dismiss my valid point regarding elite athletes being born with genetic and physical advantages. Are you trying to argue that someone who grows to be 7 feet tall does not have a competitive advantage in basketball compared to someone who is 5'7? Or that someone who has extra lung capacity or produces less lactic acid doesn't have an inherent advantage in any sort of endurance sport? Again you want to talk "science" until it doesn't fit your narrative and then it's "silly". The point I was making is that sports are full of "unfair advantages" many of which are determined by genetics. So when we start trying to break down advantages at that level it becomes more complicated. If someone is born a woman but has naturally occurring high level of testosterone should she be barred from women's sports? I'm sure you'll avoid that question as you avoided this whole line of reasoning because you don't have a valid response that doesn't make you look like the hypocrite you are. And speaking of hypocrites... your last paragraph is spot on... if you're talking about yourself. First off my thoughts on transgender women competing in women's sports are and basically have been that it's an issue that is given an outsized amount of coverage relative to the number of people impacted. And it's done so because people like you react with such rage and emotion that it's an easy button to push to manipulate you. I personally don't have a ton of strong feelings one way or the other when it comes to transgender women (which again the boxer in question is not) competing. I think both sides have some valid points and I do not have a problem with sports organizations setting rules or guidelines regarding the participation of transgender athletes. Now that we've cleared that up, lets get into your "War on Women" nonsense. Let me lay out the logic for you. You're up in arms over an athlete that was supposedly born with unique genetic traits (I'm being intentionally vague b/c I, like you, don't know for a fact what they are) beating a competitor in an Olympic boxing match. How many women in this country do you think are impacted by similar situations? Feel free to make your guess on the high side b/c it won't matter. Now how many women in this country can get pregnant? I get that science isn't your bag so math probably isn't a strong suit either but I'm sure even you can figure out which number there is going to be bigger. My concern and focus is on something that has the potential to impact millions of women. Yours is on one that might be in the thousands at most. So tell me exactly how my concern is "trash" or hypocritical?