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

800 dude x wrote:

Per the research article earlier in the thread about the 2011 WC samples, there were some non DSD (presumably non 46xy, unclear if they ruled out every possible DSD) samples in the 5+ range.

The authors seemed to be suggesting that unproven doping was the likely cause but there was no info about why they didn't fail a test then (not subjected to standard testing protocols onsite I guess?).

Also, what are the chances that these two athletes both have a DSD that is NOT 46XY? Seems unlikely but I'm not an endocrinologist or a geneticist.

I work in bioinformatics looking at genomic data especially the X and Y although I'm not involved in research as specific as the one under discussion. But consider that we haven't even mapped most of the Y chromosome yet due to its repetitive nature (its hard to reassemble all the reads unambiguously). And for the parts we have mapped you can have deletions on many different scales. The X is better mapped and scientists recently completed it fully from one end to another. It shouldn't surprise anyone if we still had much to learn or even observe.

By the way I noticed in the regulations that none of the approved reference test centres are in the continent of Africa. That is worrying for several different reasons. Sequencing facilties are thin on the ground so there could be significant regional gaps in knowledge. It's only recently that the Human Pangemome Project has started to attempt to build regional reference genomes - currently scientists map everyone to a reference genome which had a European Y chromosome. A lot of the data released so far covers west African samples using long read data which is easier to map accurately.

With a website that nurtures so much homophobia, you guys sure are overwhelmingly preoccupied with whether someone has balls or not. I guess it’s par for a bunch or losers that wear shorts in the shower.

Disko Eric wrote:

With a website that nurtures so much homophobia, you guys sure are overwhelmingly preoccupied with whether someone has balls or not. I guess it’s par for a bunch or losers that wear shorts in the shower.

My concern isn't at all about if they have testicles, but whether the new rules really are overbroad and are unfairly preventing women from being able to compete. I understand there are privacy issues, but unfortunately when the full details are never revealed it's then impossible for the rest of the world to understand what is going on. Are these just "normal" women who simply have very high testosterone levels? Are we punishing people for their superior athletic genetics? Although that was the reasoning behind separating male and female from competing against each other. Should there just be a third category of athletes: male, female, and female with testosterone above 5nm/L ("female plus five")? Will the new issue become males who identify as female and want to compete in the female plus five who are then unfairly beating women who have a DSD?

Armstronglivs wrote:

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.

What you said is demonstrably untrue and you have no understanding of what "true hermaphroditism" is. As I have already pointed out, there are 46XX disorders of sexual development that can easily account for the testosterone. The thing no one seems to be understanding is that this is a shift in World Athletics stated rules. The DSD rules were not supposed to affect XX individuals, IAAF clearly stated this. They said that testosterone was not an issue if the person was XX. The current rules do not state that. The rules include ovotesticular DSD as being prohibited and "most" (60%) ovotesticular DSD individuals are 46XX and can easily have t levels above 5 nmol/L.

Here is a case study of a 19 year old, 46XX male with testosterone levels of (322 ng/dl) which is 11.1 nmol/L.

If you believe this to be an anomaly, a simple google search of the words "ovotesticular dsd case study" will send you over to Google Scholar, and provide you with hundreds upon hundreds of factual articles on the subject matter and examples of 46XX males and females, some with high T levels and some without.

As discussed already, the most frequent karyotype of individuals with ovotesticular DSD is 46XX, There are a whole bunch of other presentations but 96.6% of Africans with DSD show a 46XX karyotype.

If you or anyone else still doesn't understand what the issue is, I can't you/them. World Athletics has clearly changed the rules pertaining to XX individuals. Someone should ask them to explain it.

Ray Cyst wrote:

What you said is demonstrably untrue and you have no understanding of what "true hermaphroditism" is. As I have already pointed out, there are 46XX disorders of sexual development that can easily account for the testosterone. The thing no one seems to be understanding is that this is a shift in World Athletics stated rules. The DSD rules were not supposed to affect XX individuals, IAAF clearly stated this. They said that testosterone was not an issue if the person was XX. The current rules do not state that. The rules include ovotesticular DSD as being prohibited and "most" (60%) ovotesticular DSD individuals are 46XX and can easily have t levels above 5 nmol/L.

Didn't your article state that there have only been 500 cases of this reported, and that only 10% of those had an SRY gene on one of the chromosomes?

And now you're telling me two people have popped up at the exact same time with this exact same condition?

Seems a bit coincidental.

The incidence is stated as 1 in less than 20,000, it's prevalence in Africa with respect to other DSDs, is shockingly high. Less than 500 cases have been reported, but as you can see, these don't get reported much unless someone pries into ones business. Caster was 46XY DSD and it only was tested for and reported when IAAF stuck their noses in her business. 1 in 20,000 in Africa suggest a larger number given the prevalence among Africans and that there are many that are never reported. It's not something that requires intervention unless you want it to. This obviously makes sense because if these 2 women are in fact 46XX DSD, it still hasn't been reported and never would have been discussed had they not made the Olympic team. When you look at the data and the big picture, its not that far-fetched.

Again, I stress, this is an "if" as I have no independent knowledge of their chromosomal status. I only have what has been reported that they are XX and that WA has stated that they are not eligible for female classification. Looking at the rules under 2.2, the thing that fits would be ovotestucular DSD with a 46XX Karyotype.

Don't know why you're getting angry at everyone then. You've decided that they must both have a rare disorder based on what some Namibian guy says (who has a vested interest in making his athletes look hard done by).

The other (and much more obvious answer) is that these athletes are 46 XY DSD and the Namibians are lying.

Obviously you're a real expert in this (and not an internet expert) so forgive me if I'm wrong. But wouldn't such extreme levels of masculinization (that these individuals show) be pretty rare for a 46 XX DSD? These athletes, besides the obvious, are 100% masculine (just like Semenya), wearing a fancy leotard and funky hair doesn't change that.

First of all, I am not angry, possibly "frustrated" would be a better word.

Secondly and to your question, the level of masculinization is not uncommon at all. Many 46XX DSD individuals live as men and as I stated, have T-levels far exceeding the WA limit. In fact, most ovotesticular DX occurs when young boys start developing feminine characteristics. The frustration comes into play because we still live in a world where everyone believes that XY = male and XX = female and that simply is not true. It's not true now and it was never true. We cannot even agree on whether a mask works or not, or whether climate change is real, there is zero chance of making people accept the XX/XY science that goes against what they were told and I specify what they were told because had they actually read the science they would know the truth.

Side note: these 2 women suddenly burst onto the running scene with extremely fast times for 18 year old females. No one knows what their past is. All 46XX individuals were given an open invitation by IAAF in 2019 to run in the female category. We have no idea how many accepted that invitation. I assume some have since it's clear that WA has now fixed the language in rule 2.2.

Should we automatically ban any young person from female athletics if they are very fast?

Surely all naturally fast 'women and girls' have a distinct genetic advantage. As do all naturally fast men and boys.

What is the 'true female' 🤦‍♂️ equivalent of 43 secondsfor 400m?

The Namibian authorities have claimed these individuals are XX - thus "women" - and have not identified them as hermaphroditic, which is extremely rare - although as one poster has pointed out it is an extraordinary coincidence that 2 might have emerged in the same event in the same sports team. What is also apparent from the material you presented above is that such individuals present as male, as they have functioning male genitalia. Yet in Namibia they compete in the women's team. You will pardon my scepticism.

The IAAF set testosterone levels for women at 5nml, because XX hypoandrogenic women will not exceed that level. However XY DSD males will - hence the rules - and as you have pointed put, true hermaphrodites may also - all 1 in 20,000 of them. But those individuals, who have functioning testes and genitalia, will present as male. So why would they choose to identify as female for sports purposes? Is this what women's sport envisaged? If they clearly have characteristics that only males can share then surely that should require them to compete with others like them that share those characteristics - other males - and not those who don't - females?

For me, this isn't about taking a position on one side or the other, I find this topic fascinating because WA has done a complete reversal on their stated policy. That's what I want more information on. As for them being more "manlike," yeah, that's how it works. In fact, XX disorders tend to be more manlike than XY disorders, that's why they are disorders. It's hard for people to grasp because they still cling to the XY male XX female programming. A crude way of thinking about it, and in fact someone I know well got in serious heat for saying it, is that a 46XY DSD individual should have been a woman but nature accidentally made them look like a man and a 46XX DSD individual should have been a man but nature accidentally made them look like a woman. Yes, there are some glaring flaws there and it's definitely not PC, but it's not entirely inaccurate either.

I also don't understand the point that keeps getting raised about the chance of having 2 at the same time and on the same team given how rare it is. OK, but we know that 2 women from the same team were disqualified from participating as women, per WA rules and are only allowed to run the 200 because of it. We know what rule they were disqualified by and we know what that rule says. The only possible explanations left are that they are XX DSD and I am right or they are XY DSD and they are liars. Either way they are still 2 teammates with a very rare condition appearing on the track scene at the same time so your coincidence skepticism doesn't make any sense since we already know it's happened. A much better conspiracy theory would be that after the IAAF rule and the invitation for all XX athletes to run with women, these 2 saw an opportunity and took it.

Read what Dr Taboo said about this more than 2 years ago after IAAF made their new rule.

My scepticism to your point above is not that these women have appeared as team mates in the same event but that they are what they and the Namibian authorities say they are.

I think the crucial point in this is that for these individuals to have testosterone levels in the male range they would have to have functioning testes. That is what they share with males that females do not have - that is, "women" who are not so described through either self-identification or because they have "pseudohermaphroditic" characteristics. For that reason I think their t-levels are still the best and fairest way to determine their eligibility to compete against women - even if it seems simplistic to some. That's the present IAAF formula and for now I think it is the fairest.

Nico wrote:

Not strange at all. Human biology and morphology is a lot more complicated than the average letsrun poster’s chants of Caster-is-an-XY-male would lead you to believe. There are a lot of causes of hyperandrogenism in females including taking good old anabolic steroids from an early age.

Sure things like this are always more complicated than can be expressed in an LRC post. Just curious though - how many intersex athletes were in the woman’s 800m final in 2016?

Not all DSDs involve an XY chromosome. Not all DSDs cause increased testosterone. Not every case of hyperandrogenism is caused by a DSD.

These were knee-jerk rules introduced to block individuals without consideration for the implications.

RunRagged wrote:

But the current IAAF/WA DSD rules about eligibility in women's events do not apply to anyone with XX DSDs. They apply only to athletes with XY DSDs.

Once again, this is not true. It's what they said in 2019, but it's not what the rules say now. I really don't know why you are having such a hard time understanding something so simple. Here it is again and real slow.

For the rule to apply, the individual must be deemed a Relevant Athlete under 2.2

To be a Relevanat Athlete they must meet 3 criteria:

#1 They must be 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

#2 As a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5)

nmol/L or above;

#3 She has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone

to have a material androgenising effect.

ALL 3 criteria can be met in an individual with Ovotesticular DSD with a 46XX Karyotype. They would be barred from competition in events from 400 to a mile. I have already posted about the frequency of this DSD in Africa. I don't know what you don't understand. Contrary to their original stance, the current regulations under 2.2 does ban an XX DSD. We call these facts. It's not even debatable, it's in black and white. What is debatable is if these 2 women have Ovotesticular DSD with a 46XX karyotype. I don't know if they do, I just say it fits the situation.

The criteria to be a Relevant Athlete is unchanged compared to version 2.0 of the regulations (published May 2019) and is more restrictive than the criteria in version 1 (published in April 2018). The FAQs released in May 2019 indicate the regulations apply only to XY individuals but that requirement does not appear to be included in any version of the rules published before or after the FAQs so it doesn't seem clear that anything has changed regarding the applicability to XX DSDs.

Version 1

Version 2

FAQs