It's quite a shame in my opinion. She was raised by a single mother who died when she was 13. She then had to live with her grandmother and uncle, and she became responsible for her two younger sisters. Her friends abandoned her due to the stigma of being an orphan. But she found something she was very good at. Her story was inspiring; she literally came from nothing and defied all odds to become a star. Then in the blink of an eye she was humiliated before the world and had everything taken away from her. And people think that is something to celebrate. For me it's less a story of protecting women, and more a story of a human being who was very talented - who overcame social disadvantage not faced by her peers - being disregarded and tossed aside due to birth differences beyond her control. She obviously can't compete with men, and now she can't compete at her best against women. Basically her dream is over.
Christine's unorthodox running style and finishing kick were exciting contrasted with other runners, and I personally would have loved to see her battle it out with the likes of Thomas, Richardson and Steiner in Paris. It was great to have a Namibian elite athlete in the mix, good for African athletics too. 14 of the top 15 leading 200m times this year are from Americans. Make of that what you will. Christine would possibly have been competing for the medals, but it was not like she was going to wipe the floor with the others. I think people were worried she would break the WR, or that she would dominate all her races, but she wasn't having an easy time even before the forced break. She had already dealt with a hamstring injury and couldn't get back to sub 22.
Of all the affected DSD athletes, it seems she took the hardest hit. Maybe because she's less androgen sensitive than the other athletes - her physique is very different to Seyni and Cofil, isn't it? She was always a better athlete than those two over 100m and 200m, yet they are now faster. But all these girls were painted with the same brush and given the same restrictions. Christine has already grown larger breasts and her body fat is suddenly high, her energy levels are low. I understand people will say something needed to be done to prevent an army of intersex athletes dominating 200m and 100m (which was never going to happen anyway), but how about (SUBTLY, with respect for dignity) introducing new eligibility rules for upcoming athletes and placing existing professional athletes under a grandfather clause?
And I also wonder if we will look back in 20 years and see how many of her rivals were doping.
Mboma is not a female. He is a biological male with XY chromosomes and no female sex organs whatsoever. Of course he has no business on a track with women. He has massive gender based advantages over them. The tragedy is that Namibia cynically went out and found two of these DSD individuals in an effort to have their own Semenya’s to try to win Gold medals. Shameful, exploitative and deceitful.
No she is not a biological male. She is a human being with a DSD who was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl. There is a reason these conditions come under the intersex umbrella. Do you really think that someone from a poor village who was raised as a girl, and at some point later on realized her periods were absent, would immediately identify as male? Especially someone from a simple upbringing with lack of education and access to professional healthcare.
Her specific condition has not been made public. The WA Guidelines for DSD athletes include certain conditions that could involve chromosomal mosaicism (e.g. XX/XY)- saying she is fully XY is already an assumption not based on available facts. If she is XY, partial androgen insensitivity is a possible relevant condition under the guide, as is Ovotesticular disorder which means she could have a combination of ovarian/testicular tissue. Either way, she is not a regular biological male who can produce offspring through penetrative intercourse. She is an individual with a difference of sexual development who was female-identified at birth and raised as a female.
No she is not a biological male. She is a human being with a DSD who was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl. There is a reason these conditions come under the intersex umbrella. Do you really think that someone from a poor village who was raised as a girl, and at some point later on realized her periods were absent, would immediately identify as male? Especially someone from a simple upbringing with lack of education and access to professional healthcare.
Her specific condition has not been made public. The WA Guidelines for DSD athletes include certain conditions that could involve chromosomal mosaicism (e.g. XX/XY)- saying she is fully XY is already an assumption not based on available facts. If she is XY, partial androgen insensitivity is a possible relevant condition under the guide, as is Ovotesticular disorder which means she could have a combination of ovarian/testicular tissue. Either way, she is not a regular biological male who can produce offspring through penetrative intercourse. She is an individual with a difference of sexual development who was female-identified at birth and raised as a female.
But going by the Regulations alone as they’re written doesn’t give a complete and most accurate picture. WA’s current DSD Regulations were drafted more broadly than they're actually being applied in real life.
WA is apparently applying the Regulations as narrowly as possible so as to stay in good stead with CAS, to stave off more lawsuits, and to be as fair as possible to athletes with DSDs.
When the CAS ruled on the Semenya case in 2019, it said in its decision (dated April 30, 2019) that it was approving the new DSD regulations on the condition that they would only be applied to DSD athletes who met very strict criteria, starting with having the standard 46, XY chromosome pattern found in most males.
On May 1 2019, the IAAF published a briefing notes and a set of Q&As explaining how they were applying the regulations IRL:
Which athletes fall under the DSD regulations? The DSD regulations only apply to individuals who are: legally female (or intersex) and who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have [all of the following]: - male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX); - testes not ovaries; - circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and - the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’).
Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision upholding IAAF Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)
Relevant excerpts from the Summary of the CAS decision in the Semenya case dated April 30, 2019 and released on May 1 2019:
During the course of the proceedings before the CAS, the IAAF explained that the Regulations are limited to “46 XY DSD” – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes [and]
testosterone levels well into the male range, the normal adult male range, rather than the normal adult female range
and who experience a “material androgenizing effect” from that enhanced testosterone level.
The only way a person can have natural testosterone levels well into the male range and still be healthy and fit enough to be competing at a high level in sports is to have testes, aka male gonads. And to have testes, a person has to have male genetics.
In the unlikely event that someone with ovaries and female genetics were to have T levels in the male range, she’d be really ill due to a life-threatening cancerous tumor.
You're right that the Regulations as written leave room for an affected athlete to have a karyotype other than 46,XY such as mosaicism. But for an athlete to meet all the criteria, most of the athlete’s cells would have to have the SRY gene. Because that’s the only way that the athlete would have developed male gonads (testes) that produce male levels of testosterone, and also would have enough male androgen receptors in good working order to have the kind of physiological response to testosterone typical of males.
Similarly, the Regulations do leave room for an affected athlete to have ovotesticular DSD and mosacisism. But for the rules to apply, an athlete with OT DSD would have to have enough normally developed and functioning testicular tissue to produce testosterone in the normal male range. To do that, most of the nucleated cells in relevant parts of the athlete's body would have to have the SRY gene.
Whilst athletes with PAIS are included under the Regulations, it's highly doubtful that WA would apply the regulations unless they were dead certain that an athlete with PAIS has enough male androgen receptors in good working order to be able to utilize testosterone as males customarily do. The CAS decision in the Semenya case was very clear that the issue at the heart of the 2019 DSD regualtions was not how athletes with female bodies (genes, anatomy and physiology) respond to male levels of testosterone they might naturally make due to a vanishingly rare and life-threatening disorder like a T-secreting tumor, but how athletes competing in women's events with male bodies respond to the male levels of T they make in the normal, commonplace male way - meaning in their testes.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Mboma is not a female. He is a biological male with XY chromosomes and no female sex organs whatsoever. Of course he has no business on a track with women. He has massive gender based advantages over them. The tragedy is that Namibia cynically went out and found two of these DSD individuals in an effort to have their own Semenya’s to try to win Gold medals. Shameful, exploitative and deceitful.
she is not a regular biological male who can produce offspring through penetrative intercourse. She is an individual with a difference of sexual development who was female-identified at birth and raised as a female.
You're trying really hard to spin things, but it's not working. Mboma IS a biological male but can't have penetrative sex because he has a birth defect that caused his penis not to grow. But he's still male.
The fact that someone thought he was a female when he was born because of the lack of a penis just means that someone made a mistake. It doesn't mean that he is female. Give it up already.
Mboma is not a female. He is a biological male with XY chromosomes and no female sex organs whatsoever. Of course he has no business on a track with women. He has massive gender based advantages over them. The tragedy is that Namibia cynically went out and found two of these DSD individuals in an effort to have their own Semenya’s to try to win Gold medals. Shameful, exploitative and deceitful.
No she is not a biological male. She is a human being with a DSD who was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl. There is a reason these conditions come under the intersex umbrella. Do you really think that someone from a poor village who was raised as a girl, and at some point later on realized her periods were absent, would immediately identify as male? Especially someone from a simple upbringing with lack of education and access to professional healthcare.
Her specific condition has not been made public. The WA Guidelines for DSD athletes include certain conditions that could involve chromosomal mosaicism (e.g. XX/XY)- saying she is fully XY is already an assumption not based on available facts. If she is XY, partial androgen insensitivity is a possible relevant condition under the guide, as is Ovotesticular disorder which means she could have a combination of ovarian/testicular tissue. Either way, she is not a regular biological male who can produce offspring through penetrative intercourse. She is an individual with a difference of sexual development who was female-identified at birth and raised as a female.
No one is expecting Mboma to "identify as male" immediately or ever. It's just that since sports categories are based on sex, then athletes have to be sorted for the purpose of sports competition based on their actual sex. And the reality is that WA's DSD regulations for women's competiton that have been in force since 2019 only apply to athletes who are biological males yet have been allowed to compete in the female category.
I know you don't like that reality, and you think it's rude and disrespectful for anyone to speak frankly and clearly about the actual sex of athletes like Mboma. But for the sake of fairness to athletes who actually are female - and all the rest of us who are female too - sometimes the truth about the sex of DSD athletes like Mboma has to be spoken about honestly and in plain language without all the fudging, obfuscating and lying.
The 2019 CAS decision in the Semenya case bends over backwards to avoid saying forthrightly what the IAAF/WA said in no uncertain terms during the hearings, which is that the DSD regulations apply only to athletes with DSDs competing in the female category who are male:
the DSD Regulations create restrictions that are targeted at a group of individuals who have certain immutable biological characteristics (namely a 46 XY DSD coupled with a material androgenising effect arising from that condition), and which do not apply to individuals who do not have those characteristics.
the reason for the separation between male and female categories in competitive athletics is ultimately founded on biology rather than legal status. The purpose of having separate categories is to protect a class of individuals who lack certain insuperable performance advantages from having to compete against individuals who possess those insuperable advantages.
In this regard, the fact that a person is recognised in law as a woman and identifies as a woman does not necessarily mean that they lack those insuperable performance advantages associated with certain biological traits that predominate in individuals who are generally (but not always) recognised in law as males and self-identify as males.
It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that insuperable advantage and which do not.
it follows that it may be legitimate to regulate the right to participate in the female category by reference to those biological factors
In other words, the bottom line here is the actual sexed bodies of the affected DSD athletes - not their gender identity/sense of self, the sex stated on their current government-issued identity documents, the sex they were thought to be as babies and pre-pubescent children, or how the athletes were raised and socialized growing up.
No she is not a biological male. She is a human being with a DSD who was identified as female at birth and raised as a girl.
Her specific condition has not been made public. The WA Guidelines for DSD athletes include certain conditions that could involve chromosomal mosaicism (e.g. XX/XY)- saying she is fully XY is already an assumption not based on available facts.
On 5 July 2021, just days after the news broke that Mboma and Masilingi were subject to WA’s 2019 DSD regulations and thus wouldn’t be allowed to compete in the women’s 400m at the Tokyo Olympics, Andy Brown of Sports Integrity Initiative published a piece that attempted to establish the facts. At that time, much of the media was claiming that Mboma and Masilingii were the latest in a long line of fast black African female runners unfairly singled out and sanctioned by World Athletics for having "elevated natural testosterone."
It has been widely reported that the DSD Regulations seek to exclude “women” whose testosterone levels exceed 5nmol/L from international events run between 400m and one mile in World Athletics’ female category.
The truth is that the DSD Regulations are not really about testosterone at all. They do measure testosterone, but this is to weed out athletes whom World Athletics considers have developed an advantage over time due to being “biologically male.”
As such, the DSD Regulations label the two 18 year old Namibians as 46 XY karyotype, or “biologically male.”
The Regulations don’t specifically state that they only apply to 46 XY athletes – to do so would be politically problematic.
But World Athletics has confirmed that the DSD Regulations only apply to the 46 XY karyotype.
Brown said a World Athletics spokesperson told Brown/SII in an email that all athletes then being held to the new rules were XY:
“These 46 XY athletes have DSDs which mean that their testes are internal, and their lack of male external genitalia caused them to be assigned a female gender rather than male gender at birth. From puberty onwards, their internal testes produce the same levels of testosterone (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) as are produced 46 XY males who do not have DSDs. And provided they have functioning androgen receptors, and so their bodies are able to utilise that testosterone (another condition that has to be met for the DSD Regulations to apply), those male testosterone levels give them exactly the same physiological advantages over 46 XX females as the 46 XY males without DSDs enjoy.”
Brown said he also spoke to British barrister Jonathan Taylor, one of the attorneys who authored the Regulations, and Taylor told him:
“The DSD Regs only apply to Relevant Athletes, i.e. athletes who meet the criteria set out at 2.2(a). And only 46 XY DSD athletes will meet those criteria.”
As confirmed by World Athletics above, the DSD Regulations only apply to 46 XY athletes. As such, their application has outed Caster Semenya, Christine Mboma, Beatrice Masilingi, Francine Niyonsaba, and Margaret Wambui as 46 XY DSD, or ‘biologically male’. Through the application of its Regulations, World Athletics is literally labelling young athletes who consider themselves female as male.
Brown ended his piece appearing to agree with your view that it's offensive, disrespectful and bad form for WA and anyone else to refer to the athletes subect to the DSD rules in place since 2019 as male. Noting that the European Court of Human Rights had published 10 questions to take into account in considering whether WA's DSD Regulations violate Semenya’s human rights, he wrote:
The first of these [questions] asks if Semenya has "suffered treatment contrary to her human dignity, her physical and mental integrity, and her social and gender identity." It is hard to see how the answer could be anything other than the affirmative.
Last week, two Namibian athletes were excluded from the Tokyo 2020 Olympics after being assessed under the DSD Regulations of World Athletics. It has been widely reported that the DSD Regulations (PDF below) seek to exclude ‘...
You're right that the Regulations as written leave room for an affected athlete to have a karyotype other than 46,XY such as mosaicism. But for an athlete to meet all the criteria, most of the athlete’s cells would have to have the SRY gene. Because that’s the only way that the athlete would have developed male gonads (testes) that produce male levels of testosterone, and also would have enough male androgen receptors in good working order to have the kind of physiological response to testosterone typical of males.
Similarly, the Regulations do leave room for an affected athlete to have ovotesticular DSD and mosacisism. But for the rules to apply, an athlete with OT DSD would have to have enough normally developed and functioning testicular tissue to produce testosterone in the normal male range. To do that, most of the nucleated cells in relevant parts of the athlete's body would have to have the SRY gene.
Whilst athletes with PAIS are included under the Regulations, it's highly doubtful that WA would apply the regulations unless they were dead certain that an athlete with PAIS has enough male androgen receptors in good working order to be able to utilize testosterone as males customarily do. The CAS decision in the Semenya case was very clear that the issue at the heart of the 2019 DSD regualtions was not how athletes with female bodies (genes, anatomy and physiology) respond to male levels of testosterone they might naturally make due to a vanishingly rare and life-threatening disorder like a T-secreting tumor, but how athletes competing in women's events with male bodies respond to the male levels of T they make in the normal, commonplace male way - meaning in their testes.
Wrong. You’re pulling claims right out of your rear. Presumably “most” means at least a majority. Do you have a reference to back that claim?
Not that all this matters because your whole modus operandi is to read an intent of a purist binary definition of sex in WA’s documents, however all of their eligibility rules related to intersex and trans are based on performance fairness, not developing a binary classifier for sex. They acknowledge these are women and female (yes, “female”).
It’s disappointing to see Christine Mboma not make the cut for Paris, especially after such an impressive performance at the Olympics. Hopefully, she’ll have another chance to compete and showcase her talent.
It’s disappointing to see Christine Mboma not make the cut for Paris, especially after such an impressive performance at the Olympics. Hopefully, she’ll have another chance to compete and showcase her talent.
Performances achieved by excessive testosterone levels way beyond what is the norm for a cis gendered female giving an unfair advantage and should never have been allowed to compete with such levels. The ship has been righted.
