While I agree about Bernie Sanders I really can't see the justification in describing Harris's candidacy as a "polarized extreme". Sanders is clearly more extreme than her. (I don't think he's extreme at all, just that he's further to the left)

I wouldn’t call Kamala extreme per se. The extreme position is the doubling down on positions that don’t resonate with the electorate and labeling the opposition racist or traitorous instead of working to find common ground. One example of an extreme position dichotomy would be the choice between an unnecessarily porous border without transparency and mass deportation when the people would likely all agree on a steady stream of legal citizenship applications coming through the front door. Another instance might be that Americans would likely be largely in favor of trans rights if they weren’t bundled with allowing professional male combat athletes to unfairly dominate female participants. I think Americans crave common sense and it is nowhere to be found.

> allowing professional male combat athletes to unfairly dominate female participants

Had this actually happened somewhere, or is it just a hypothetical? Like trans women assaulting cis women en masse in women's restrooms.

Yes, with Fallon Fox as the best-known example. He's an ex-military male who started competing in women's mixed martial arts, and broke a female opponent's skull while doing so.

Others are listed here: https://www.shewon.org/males

What I'd really be interested in is something larger than an anecdote: Do trans women dominate cis women in the sports they compete in? It would take a larger study, as a one-off doesn't really mean much.

Also note that Fox has not won all of her fights, which indicates that trans women are not as dominant as the one fight you mentioned would suggest.

The question is perhaps better reframed in two parts:

1. Do male athletes dominate female athletes in competition? We know the answer to that is yes, in almost all sports. It's why we have a separate female category, and there is a wealth of evidence to support this - from biological studies by sports scientists to comparisons of world records.

2. Are there any interventions that male athletes can take upon their bodies to entirely eliminate the male physical advantage in sports? From the evidence we have so far, the answer is no. They can be weakened through testosterone suppression, but in general they still retain a significant advantage over female athletes.

There is also the question of whether an impaired male athlete should be considered equivalent to a female athlete for the purposes of eligibility in the female category. This is more of a philosophical question and leans heavily on whether one believes that "trans women" are women or not. Is it fair to impose this belief on others who do not share this belief - particularly female athletes who may fundamentally object to being compelled to compete against men?

It really amazes me how much this has become an issue and how few people question why or how. The number of trans athletes we're talking about, nationwide, is no higher than in the dozens. The idea that when asked about a presidential election someone would cite trans issues as a priority staggers me. A true testament to the power of conservative media.

Another angle on this is: If trans athletes are such a concern, wouldn't giving trans kids gender affirming care resolve this issue? The standard care is puberty blockers starting at about 10, then hormone therapy in their teens, then surgery if they wish after they become adults.

It's almost like what they say they are concerned about isn't what they are really concerned about.

Conservatives leapt upon this as a wedge issue in recent years, but originally the pushback against the imposition of males upon the female category in sports (and female spaces in general) came from feminist activism.

At this point it's hundreds of male athletes competing in women's and girls' sport: https://shewon.org/males

So now we have people inspecting women's genitals to see if they are really female, women being called out because they don't look feminine enough, and all the worst misogynistic instincts on full display.

The thing is, the best athletes frequently have genetic privilege that others don't have, whether it be extra long or extra short limbs, being extra tall, having higher than average testosterone levels, etc. There is no level playing field.

I don't know what the best answer is, but what we are seeing now is pretty ugly.

Screening for sex can be done with a cheek swab. It's much, much less invasive than the anti-doping tests that require blood to be extracted and a direct visual on the athlete passing urine. And it only needs to be done once in an athlete's career.

In most cases though it's very obvious when a male is in a women's event. For example, no-one is going to mistake this male, who competes in women's cycling, for female: https://i.ibb.co/N6ZBzh4K/F4-Svyxt-XYAAMpc-M.jpg

The best athletes often do have some sort of genetic privilege, that is true. But look at the world records of pretty much any sport and compare the most elite male athletes with the most elite female athletes: the difference is massive. Even having advantages in limb length, lung capacity, and so on doesn't overcome the physical advantage of male development.

Both of those are real things that have real examples

A lot of Bernie voters went over to trump. Of course the democrats took that to mean they were traitors all along and not a constituency.