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

"2 XX individuals" - maybe but highly unlikely - who also have functioning testes (like all males do) which is why they are able to produce testosterone above the 5nml limit that applies to the rest of the ladies. Not such a big story. They are still trying to compete with a male biological advantage denied women unlucky enough to be born without balls.

I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but I know for a fact that if the athlete in question was American or British there would be uproar.

Why overcomplicate things? How about "If you have male levels of testosterone and testes, then you can't compete in women's events."

Armstronglivs wrote:

They are still trying to compete with a male biological advantage denied women unlucky enough to be born without balls.

He said balls, Armstrong is growing on me.

If they were not DSD then they were men.

Common Cents wrote:

Why overcomplicate things? How about "If you have male levels of testosterone and testes, then you can't compete in women's events."

That would have been easy for them to say, but that isn't what they said. I am not the one that overcomplicated things, I just pointed out the inconsistency of their statement in the FAQs from 2019. If their position was that it was strictly about testosterone, why list all the DSDs? Why even mention DSDs or XX and XY chromosomes? Why not just say 5 nmol/L or less, end of story have a nice day? By stating that people with XX chromosomes are not subject to the DSD regulations. and then banning someone with an XX DSD because it's listed in your rules calls for some answers I would think. I don't think it's a complicated question.

Gault?

Bueller?

Bueller?

Ray Cyst wrote:

Common Cents wrote:

Why overcomplicate things? How about "If you have male levels of testosterone and testes, then you can't compete in women's events."

That would have been easy for them to say, but that isn't what they said. I am not the one that overcomplicated things, I just pointed out the inconsistency of their statement in the FAQs from 2019. If their position was that it was strictly about testosterone, why list all the DSDs? Why even mention DSDs or XX and XY chromosomes? Why not just say 5 nmol/L or less, end of story have a nice day? By stating that people with XX chromosomes are not subject to the DSD regulations. and then banning someone with an XX DSD because it's listed in your rules calls for some answers I would think. I don't think it's a complicated question.

Gault?

Bueller?

Bueller?

We don't know for a fact they are XX. That is only a claim from the Namibian authorities. There are more reasons than not to doubt the truth of that.

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.

Could you explain if there are other DSDs (not mentioned in the current rules) which can give high T levels?

Ray; thanks, utter first class.

I would like to see what you think about the highly restricted group of events that are subject to the rules.

I, for one, am staggered that an increase in T is deemed of no benefit to Shot Put.

Whole thing a bit of a bodged job, but what else could they do?

What the hell is DSD?!

“She” is wearing a cup.

I still don't understand what your position is from your posts. Are you merely providing supplemental reading, or is there something else you are ogffering by way of an opinion? Thanks for confirming I accurately quoted what IAAF said. Do you understand why that contradicts what their rules under 2.2 say? Do you believe that Ovotesticular DSD with a 46XX karyotype is banned under 2.2, because if you don't believe that, nothing I say will make any sense. If you do believe that, then the contradiction is obvious.

Exactly, it doesn't even matter if the 2 women in question are XX or not, the contradiction in rule 2.2 and what they stated in 2019 still exists. Ovotesticular DSD presents as 46XX 60% of the time. A 46XX Karyotype Ovotesticular DSD individual can and often will have circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or above AND have sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect. What they put in the rules and what they presented to CAS are not the same thing. Regulation 2.2 applies to individuals with XX chromosomes contrary to what they stated. This means that they have exceeded the scope of the CAS ruling and they lied, fudged or misquoted what their ACTUAL rules were or were going to be. I want to know why, but Uncle Seb is not returning my calls.

You are right and have provided a question that WA will not be able to answer.

Agreed

If they are not XY, they should be allowed to run the 400m

Therefore, I have to assume that

a) they are actually XY or

b) they don’t have proper legal representation.

If it is (b) then I find it quite discriminatory and offensive.

tgyggyygggygygy wrote:

Agreed

If they are not XY, they should be allowed to run the 400m

Therefore, I have to assume that

a) they are actually XY or

b) they don’t have proper legal representation.

If it is (b) then I find it quite discriminatory and offensive.

But why do we have to wait for a case presents itself to call out the hypocrisy? It doesn't even matter is they are XX, we know they "could" be based on science and actual cases of ovotesticular 46XX DSD, and the rules would call for their exclusion. My entire point is that the rules are not what they said the rules were as they presented it to CAS to get their ruling. That's problematic regardless of what position you take on whether XX or XY should be allowed to participate.

Ray Cyst wrote:

tgyggyygggygygy wrote:

Agreed

If they are not XY, they should be allowed to run the 400m

Therefore, I have to assume that

a) they are actually XY or

b) they don’t have proper legal representation.

If it is (b) then I find it quite discriminatory and offensive.

But why do we have to wait for a case presents itself to call out the hypocrisy? It doesn't even matter is they are XX, we know they "could" be based on science and actual cases of ovotesticular 46XX DSD, and the rules would call for their exclusion. My entire point is that the rules are not what they said the rules were as they presented it to CAS to get their ruling. That's problematic regardless of what position you take on whether XX or XY should be allowed to participate.

All you are saying is that provided they are XX it is fair they should be able to compete as women, when - putting all your pseudo-medical jargon to one side - if they exceed the IAAF testosterone limit that means that have balls - like other men - and balls that work, which is how they can have male levels of testosterone. It's just unfortunate for the great majority of their female competitors that they were unlucky enough to born without them.

The further issue, which you have ducked, is that there is no confirmation that the competitors involved are in fact XX. This is so far only a claim by the Namibian authorities. I have seen it reported that they withdrew the runners from the team after it was disclosed they had exceeded the testosterone limits, and it wasn't a ban imposed by the IAAF. If the runners were in compliance with the rules because the IAAF t-limits don't apply to XX runners, then why were they withdrawn? The obvious answer is they are not XX.

You have always had a hard time understanding simple concepts. It's clear this isn't a train of thought that you can easily follow so maybe you should sit this one out. I've beat this horse to death and the point has already been clearly made. Some get it and others don't. At this point, if you are in the "not getting it" group, there is little hope you ever will.

From the magazine that reported the issue:

"Two of the world’s top female 400m runners have been discreetly scratched from their country’s Olympic team after medical tests indicated they have high natural testosterone levels."

This suggests that the initiative to remove them came from the Namibian authorities. If it is now being argued that the testosterone rules effectively do not apply to these athletes because they are XX the question must be, why have the Namibian authorities scratched them and, further, not argued to the IAAF for their inclusion?