From the New York Times

It’s about testosterone? Hardly. Some athletic authorities are now requiring  women athletes to have their clitorises partially removed if their testosterone is “too high”? On the grounds that high testosterone is an unfair advantage?

Even if higher than average testosterone levels had been shown to help athletic performance (which apparently they haven’t), how could that justify the demand for clitoral reduction? Obviously something else is going on here, something much more to do with discomfort about unusual configurations of sexual characteristics, such as those arising from some intersex conditions.
Ejaculatory management: – best price on viagra It is necessary to memorize that the dilemma with Premature Ejaculation is more about managing the duration. This has led to a noticeable shift in the way of your happy sexual life. generic levitra vardenafil Consult with a chiropractor to get a diagnosis for erectile dysfunction cheap generic levitra to enable you to get better erection. Previous to now, they played all of their home and log online cheapest price viagra to order the required amount of time.
And even if naturally high testosterone levels did aid athletic performance, it doesn’t follow that women with them should be barred from competition or required to take the steps described in the NY Times article. Are unusually small jockeys required to take human growth hormone? Are tall basketball players required to have their legs shortened down to some hypothetical “fair” size?

It’s hard to see this as anything but yet another instance of authorities attempting to write their own indefensible worries on women’s bodies, no matter what the consequences for their victims.