You’re so close.
You just listed four options, but still argue that’s a ‘binary’. Every time you look closer, you’re going to find another outlier to categorize. Eventually, it starts to make more sense to look at it as a spectrum instead of a rigid set of ‘either A or B or AB or {NULL} or …’
Do you have any idea just how expensive it would be to do testing on every athlete?
There were 7.8 million student athletes in the US last year and the average cost of a testosterone test is 70 - 100 bucks. Even using conservative estimations, you’d need to spend half a BILLION dollars PER YEAR to accomplish this. And the worst part? Do you know how many of those 7.8 million were trans students? Five.
Not Five thousand. Not Fifty. Five.
You are being distracted and lied to.
The sequel is when the original programmers die and a new team has to come in and figure out WTF their code is doing or even supposed to be doing.
AuDHD here. I could be entirely off, but there’s two jokes I can see.
The first is that the punchline is a non-joke, because it’s been removed.
The second is that they’re all just as meaningless, but still repeated. Rich and attractive people always try to convince you not to question those structures because it benefits them. It’s a nothing statement. Of course they would say that. Just like [Deleted], always saying [Removed].
Your argument has been used countless times in history for a number of “abnormalities” that turn out to just be differences without distinction.
“Listen, I’m a supporter of red-heads, but don’t we basically understand that it’s a genetic abnormality? Maybe ‘illness’ is a bit harsh, but they’re just not common enough in society to be considered normal.”
Lmao. You realize the rainbow is a SPECTRUM, right? If I show you a rainbow, can you draw the line where green stops and teal begins?