[mschuster91]

> It's worth keeping in mind that the reason we have sex-segregated prisons in the first place is because mixed-sex prisons were so demonstrably harmful to female inmates, who were subjected to physical violence, sexual assault, rape, impregnation by male prisoners.

The problem then are male prisoners, are they not? In fact, trans women are 13 times more likely to be assaulted in prison [1] than cis-male ones.

The solution is obvious - more guards in prison, segregate prisoners with a violence or sexual assault history, and maybe imprison less people in the first place because many prisons are plain and simple overcrowded.

> Whereas the latter - eliminating male physical advantage from competition - is necessary for fairness and, in the case of contact sports, for safety.

Regarding the safety aspect in contact sports - I think the better solution is to leave that decision to the women themselves, but generally I'd more argue to ban or seriously restrict contact sports because a looot of them have had very nasty links to brain injuries uncovered.

> Evidence-based policy approaches typically draw the line at the male physical advantage of testosterone-driven development.

The question remains: do we really want to require athletes to submit to full-blown genetic and hormonal assays? Do we really want to require minor athletes to submit to genital examinations for no medical reason? The obsession a lot of people have with genitalia is absurd.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/us/trans-women-incarcerat...

[bobalob]

The problem is male prisoners, yes. Which is why segregating prisoners by sex is an essential component of safeguarding. And then further separation of vulnerable prisoners within each prison. If, in a male prison, there are inmates who desire to be women and are deemed to be at risk based on this, they should be separated from the general prison population, like other vulnerable prisoners are. Not transferred to a female prison.

Regarding the female category of sports, a sample of cells taken via a cheek swab can be used for karyotype testing, which would be sufficient for screening female athletes. This is much less intrusive than the anti-doping tests - which involve having blood taken and being observed urinating - that for many athletes is a requirement to compete. In the unusual case that the athlete has something other than 46,XX sex chromosomes, further analysis could be done - with the athlete's permission - to understand the underlying condition and, from this, determine eligibility to compete in this category.

No-one is advocating for all female athletes, including children, to undergo genital inspections. It isn't necessary and it's not being asked for.