I'm not jumping between definitions, I'm using the single definition that is relevant for women's sport: anyone who went through male puberty retains an irreversible performance advantage and therefore should be excluded from the female category.

Women with PCOS or similar are highly unlikely to exceed the testosterone limits that some sporting bodies implement as proxy for detecting male advantage, and indeed are explicitly exempted in such policies and have never been barred under any DSD regulation.

The true edge cases aren't athletes like Semenya and Banda, but the very rare individuals with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), who don't respond to testosterone at any point in their development. Most sporting bodies carve out an exemption to exclusion for them.

Again, I don't care about women's sport regulations. That's a complicated issue, I get it! Barring women with high testosterone from competing seems like a very crude solution to me, but whatever.

What I do care about is your insistence that a single hormone test lets you exclude someone from being a woman, and JKR's dismissal of Banda. That's just so messed up, and ironically feels very misogynistic.

No this is about barring males with the physical advantage of male development from competing in the female category.

JKR was commenting on the BBC giving their Women's Footballer of the Year award to a player who had been withdrawn from competition for not being female, and how disrespectful this is to the many female footballers who would be deserving of this accolade. This is the opposite of misogynistic.

No, it really is misogynistic, because Banda is (to the best of our knowledge) a woman. Maybe you want her banned from women's sports for having advantageous hormones, fine, but she is a woman. You don't get to unilaterally decide who's a woman and who isn't based on a single hormone test. And it's extra messed up for JKR to sic her followers on a woman in the name of feminism.

But if you insist on this standard, I suggest you get your all your friends and family tested. You can't tell by appearance alone! And then, if your loved ones have that hormone imbalance, you should call them men, use he/him pronouns, interfere when they try to use women's spaces, etc. See how misogynistic it feels then. Otherwise, you're clearly only targeting Banda because she looks masculine.

And lastly, for the record, you were swapping between three different definitions of male. Having elevated testosterone, having testes, and having gone through male puberty are three very different things. You say you've settled on "having gone through male puberty" as your final definition. Great! So men that haven't gone through male puberty should be permitted in women's sports and women's bathrooms? Or will you introduce a fourth definition?

Having testes leads to male-typical levels of testosterone which, barring androgen insensitivity, leads to male puberty. These are three integrated steps in the male developmental pathway, not three different definitions.

We can agree to disagree on whether Banda is in the same category as Semenya, Khelif, etc. But consider that when news articles report a purportedly female athlete embroiled in controversy over competition eligibility as having "naturally high levels of testosterone" or similar, what this actually means is the athlete is male with a DSD. There has been a considerable amount of obfuscation on this topic and those who lose out are actual female athletes.

Unfairly elevating males like Semenya to the heights of female competition excludes women who would otherwise have had the opportunity to showcase their athletic excellence. This is the real misogyny.

Now you're just ignoring my actual points, I'm done. It doesn't seem like you actually have a coherent response here.

Not coherent how? I addressed your claim about three different definitions and provided context as to why Banda being withdrawn in anticipation of failing sex verification falls into the pattern seen previously with Semenya, Khelif, etc.

I skimmed over your hypothetical about sex testing of family and friends because it didn't really add anything to the discussion. If any were found to have testes and male levels of testosterone (which in this scenario would not be a "hormone imbalace", as you put it) then yes, they would be male.

> I addressed your claim about three different definitions

You did not. Once and for all, what is your definition for "male"? It seems like you don't want to stick with a single definition so that you can continue transvestigating any woman who looks too masculine to you.

Again, if you stick with the definition of "someone who has gone through male puberty", that excludes many people with penises you would probably identify as male, making your argument incoherent. And that's ignoring the ambiguity of what going through male puberty actually means.

> If any were found to have testes and male levels of testosterone

Again, you can't reliably predict the results of these tests from visual appearance alone. So, does this include your daughter or wife or mother or sister or friend? You would force them to use male bathrooms, even if they've been presenting as feminine, identifying as feminine, with feminine external sex characteristics, for their entire life? Congrats, that's misogyny. Your argument is incoherent.