Namibia scratched world number 1 and 3 female 400m runners for having high testosterone, but were not DSD

dullard wrote:

trollism wrote:

They are XX according to who? The article doesn't explain that.

If they were Non-DSD XX women with natural elevated T, they would be allowed to compete in whatever event they want.

The 'Semenya Rule' is for DSD athletes only, not women with high T.

+1

This article is spreading lies.

You dummies are so stupid with your Google educations that you don't realize there are XX DSD's as well. 46XX is a DSD where they can have testicles, but you all have so deeply entrenched yourselves into the bullsh!t that XY always = male and XX always = female that you now have a problem. If they are XX by your own definitions, they should be fine to run with females. Unless of course you are going to change your tune now and say that XX can be a male.

Yep, I would bet whatever is left over in my stimulus check that Brittney Griner (WNBA) suffers from Hyperandrogenism, but, but she gets to play against ALL women in the NBA. She can dunk and whatnot, which 99% of all women cannot. So, if she can do all that and still be allowed to play in the WNBA, what prevents the Namibian women from running against other women in Tokyo, or from wherever, for that matter???

Over 2 years ago, a rather salty endocrinologist was posting about the Caster Semenya situation and started the tread below. There weren't many takers at the time. Damn I miss that Dr Taboo, I wonder what became of them...

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9375361#9375367

Another oldie but goodie. I assumeS ymmonds will be along to weigh in on this situation any minute and throw his full support behind these 2 women that have been removed from competition by WA, violating their very own stated rules. I also assume that all the anti-XY Caster people here will be fully on board with these XX women running with women, after all, it's what you have been asking for this entire time!

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9376051&id=9377022

Well lookie here, another Google doctor. 46XX DSD is a thing, I guarantee you and you copy and pasting what it is is irrelevant and moronic. I already know what it is and there is nothing more pathetic than a person who Googles something and then tries to "educate" others, who already have independent and professional knowledge of the subject matter that originated prior to 5 minutes ago. I also already know what the WA rules are regarding DSD and I already quoted them. They shouldn't affect these 2, XX individuals, but for some reason they were made ineligible for female competition. What's your explanation for that? Let me guess, you just believe it's a lie that they are XX. That seems to be the typical response around here, and that is to put your thumb over the moon and pretend that it doesn't exist. I agree that if they Are 46XX DSD it should not effect them per WA rules, but since when has WA ever actually followed their own rules? As was discussed years ago by the brilliant Dr Taboo 👨‍⚕️, this was an issue that was inevitable.

Your problem is that your argument, or should I say lack of argument, dismisses the only information we have been told. We have been told that WA has made them ineligible based on high testosterone. We have been told they are XX and we have our observational skills. That's what we have to work with. If true, WA would have no reason or authority to deem them ineligible. We agree on that, so what is going on here? If they are XX and have high enough testosterone to be above the stated WA limit, an XX DSD would explain that and coupled with their appearance, it fits. However, that still would not give WA authority to deem them ineligible because the rules state that XX individuals are not subject to any restrictions or eligibility conditions under the DSD Regulations. Either WA is enforcing a rule that doesn't exist, they changed the rules, or the women are not XX.

Most of the dummies here (yes, they are dumb) insist on posting nonsense where everything is binary and XY is a male and should run with men and XX is female and should run with women. It's not that simple and gets really complicated when you get into XX DSD. When IAAF made that rule, it was clearly a mistake to anyone who knew anything about DSD. It was pointed out and commented on immediately. It was just a matter of time before a situation presented itself that would test their implementation of the rule. I don't know if this is or is not that situation, I can only go by the information that was presented.

I also never said these women have testicles, I said, 46XX DSD is a disorder where they CAN have testicles. I pointed this out because again, people don't seem to understand that XX does not always mean female and XY does not always mean male. There are 46XX DSD men walking around out there and I'm pretty sure none of these dummies that post here would want them walking into their daughters bathroom.

I'm unsure what you are arguing about, you just seem to keep crying about name calling and the only name I called you was a Google doctor, unless of course you decided to raise you hand and own the blanket "dummies" comment. If you did, that's on you. You also like posting definitions of what 46XX DSD is and the various types and speculating that the Namibia National Olympic Committee and Athletics Namibia are lying and the athletes are actually XY DSD? I don't know, you don't really seem to be saying anything, but I have no reason at this point to believe they are lying so I assess the situation as presented. Not sure why that's hard for you to grasp.

Here, read this. Again, even if this was their condition, it would not explain the action that WA took but does fit if in fact they are XX. I really want to know more. If only there was a website with journalists that specialized in track & field that could do some investigating and find out.

The one glaring issue with claiming that the Namibian athletes are 46,XX DSD is, at least according to the article, with that condition they would have male genitalia and would very likely have been raised as boys as a result.

dullard wrote:

trollism wrote:

They are XX according to who? The article doesn't explain that.

If they were Non-DSD XX women with natural elevated T, they would be allowed to compete in whatever event they want.

The 'Semenya Rule' is for DSD athletes only, not women with high T.

+1

This article is spreading lies.

XX women cannot naturally produce t-levels above 5nml. That is why the upper limit has been set there for women's competition. Most women are between 0.5-2.5nml. Those who are hypoandrogenic are unlikely to exceed 4nml. Only XY DSD males can have t-levels in the male range of 7-30nml.

Joe Jackson wrote:

The one glaring issue with claiming that the Namibian athletes are 46,XX DSD is, at least according to the article, with that condition they would have male genitalia and would very likely have been raised as boys as a result.

How different cultures deal with this is not as clear-cut as the article makes it sound. Without treatment, the individual would not have enough testosterone to develop secondary male characteristics or experience masculinization and treatment simply isn't available in many areas. Without the treatment, the individual develops breasts and feminization occurs. In essence, you are left with a man without enough testosterone to fully develop into a man but with more testosterone than a woman would normally have. The condition is not as rare as people would think. The frequency is approximately 1 in 20,000 individuals that have a male-like appearance. With 1.2 billion people in Africa and just as a rough number we assume half of them have a male-like appearance, that would yield 120,000 cases on that continent alone.

Again, I am not saying that this applies to these 2 women, I am just offering it as information for those that would not understand how an XX could be disqualified from female competition if WA decided to ignore or change the language of their own rule. No one is worried about XX DSD athletes running against women because they have been conditioned to buy into this binary XX/XY fallacy. WA gave a green light to XX DSD males to compete against women in 2019 and some of us saw it coming a mile away. Be careful what you wish for.

RunRagged wrote:

trollism wrote:

If they were Non-DSD XX women with natural elevated T, they would be allowed to compete in whatever event they want.

The 'Semenya Rule' is for DSD athletes only, not women with high T.

The "Semenya rules" are actually for XY DSD athletes only. Specifically, XY DSD athletes with functioning testes, male levels of T & the ability to respond to T as males customarily do.

There are no rules restricting the T levels or participation in women's events of XX DSD athletes who have DSDs that occur in females, such as CAH, MRKH, XX ovotesticular disorder or XX gonadal dysgenesis.

The actual rules do not mention genes at all. Rule 2.2 merely says she must have one of 7 listed DSDs. I have no idea if any of those DSDs are dependent on also being XY, but, again, there is not mention of the Relevant Athlete having to be XY in the definition of who the rule applies to.

no genes mentioned wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

The "Semenya rules" are actually for XY DSD athletes only. Specifically, XY DSD athletes with functioning testes, male levels of T & the ability to respond to T as males customarily do.

There are no rules restricting the T levels or participation in women's events of XX DSD athletes who have DSDs that occur in females, such as CAH, MRKH, XX ovotesticular disorder or XX gonadal dysgenesis.

The actual rules do not mention genes at all. Rule 2.2 merely says she must have one of 7 listed DSDs. I have no idea if any of those DSDs are dependent on also being XY, but, again, there is not mention of the Relevant Athlete having to be XY in the definition of who the rule applies to.

Where did you find Rule 2.2?

Ray Cyst wrote:

no genes mentioned wrote:

The actual rules do not mention genes at all. Rule 2.2 merely says she must have one of 7 listed DSDs. I have no idea if any of those DSDs are dependent on also being XY, but, again, there is not mention of the Relevant Athlete having to be XY in the definition of who the rule applies to.

Where did you find Rule 2.2?

Never mind, I found it. WOW! this is actually a big deal. The language in rule 2.2 is not at all what they said back in 2019 after the CAS ruling.

Here's what they said before:

"In March/April 2018, the IAAF cancelled its “Hyperandrogenism Regulations”, which had been primarily challenged by the Indian athlete Dutee Chand, and replaced them with the DSD Regulations establishing new requirements governing the eligibility of women with DSD for the female classification in race events from 400m to 1 mile (the “Restricted Events”) at international athletics competitions. The DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to athletes with “46 XY DSD” – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes. Accordingly, individuals with XX chromosomes are not subject to any restrictions or eligibility conditions under the DSD Regulations."

Here's what the rule says now.

For these purposes:

2.2.1 A "Relevant Athlete" is an athlete who meets each of the following three

criteria:

a. she has one of the following DSDs:

i. 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;

ii. partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);

iii. 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3)

deficiency;

iv. ovotesticular DSD; or

v. any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal

steroidogenesis; and

b. as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5)

nmol/L or above; and

c. she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone

to have a material androgenising effect.4

Looks like World Athletics added to the language and redacted the part that specifically said XX chromosomes are not subject to this rule. They specifically list Ovotesticular DSD which most are 46XX which normally results in female sexual development. Now it makes sense that the 2 women, as I surmised, are most likely 46XX DSD and have been made ineligible by rule 2.2.1,a

They covered the gaping loophole that was noted after they announced the new rule, but I don't recall hearing anything about any changes to it and I know for a fact that it specifically excluded XX DSDs. Sucks for these women, they need to appeal because this goes beyond the CAS ruling.

World Athletic is a filthy organization. Disgusting actually!

Relevant Documents.

WA Rules including 2.2.1,a

PDF Download:

Ovotesticular Disorder of Sex Development Info

Press Release from Semenya CAS ruling:

All it means is theyre still biological women,and not men.Theyre possibly still able to have children.Not all dsd women are men in disguise.Theres lots of different intersex conditions,some are more extreme than others,and also some women happen to have higher testosterone than is normal for a woman.Its been suggested that maria mutola,babe didrikson and dutee chand are/were in fact,biological women,or xx,yet they have testosterone far higher than most women have.Pamela jelimo probably has abnormal levals of testosterone for a woman,yet she is xx,and has had two children.

If they are XX but hypoandrogenic they will not have t-levels above the limit of 5nml. That limit was set by the IAAF to allow for hypoandrogenic women. If they are above that limit they are 46XY DSD male. The Namibian authorities are lying.

jeff tallon wrote:

Not all dsd women are men in disguise.

Can we quit it with language like this? This makes it seem like these teenage women were maliciously trying to pose as women but the fact is, even if they were 46 DSD XY, they are still women, not ‘men in disguise.’