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

The IAAF regulations on eligibility spell out the conditions relating to testosterone as follows.

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

(i) she has one of the following DSDs:

(A) 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;

(B) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);

(C) 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3) deficiency;

(D) ovotesticular DSD; or

(E) any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis;

4

and

(ii) as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or

above;

5

and

(iii) she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect."

At no point in the criteria outlined above is the chromosomal makeup of the athlete mentioned. There is no reference to either XY or XX. The key feature in all the conditions specified above is levels of testosterone and that these have a "material androgenising effect".

It is irrelevant therefore that the Namibian athletes are (or are not) XX. It is solely their testosterone levels that matter.

Yes, exactly, that's what ovotesticular DSD is, thus the word testicular in the name. I am fully aware of what it is and skirt nothing. This is why when IAAF first announced that it didn't affect XX DSD it was incredibly stupid because it failed to account for a group of people who could potentially run with women and have more circulating testosterone and be more masculine than Semenya ever was or will be. Again, you are trying to assign an opinion to me when I haven't given one. All I have provided is the contradiction and flaws in logic in the stated rules from 2019 and the actual rules from 2.2. When they first announced the rules and said that XX individuals were not affected, it made no sense for the exact reason you state and that is the presence of individuals with XX chromosomes that have functioning testes that with circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5)

nmol/L or above sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect. You are so stuck on wanting to have an argument on whether these individuals SHOULD be able to participate and you have missed the entire point and you continue to miss the point because you either refuse to read, are incapable of reading or have a serious comprehension problem.

Again, WTF are you talking about?

I don't address the point that they scratched the runners on their own because that didn't happen. You seem to think you can just drop the word "apparently" in front of something you heard and somehow it becomes a fact. It doesn't work that way. They did not scratch these athletes on their own, WA was the one who banned them from the 400 and they found out about it on social media of all places. I despise people like you, you are illiterate and uncurious and that's a bad combination.

One of the posts in this thread accused me of being angry and I said it was more of a frustration. People like you are the cause of that frustration because you are so incredibly unintelligent and you don't even realize it. You really should stop trying to understand it because it's clear you won't get it. I really try to avoid interacting with you because you are the least smart person here. You have no knowledge of anything other than what you "hear." You are the last person in a bad game of telephone and no one should ever listen to a word you say. I will no longer interact with you because to do so any further be an insult to my intelligence.

And one last thing. Please stop trying to fight and argue progressive causes because you are the least qualified to do so. When you don't understand the issues that you claim to be fighting for you only hurt the cause and make yourself and everyone else look ridiculous.

Thank you!

RunRagged wrote:

BTW, a group of organizations concerned with fairness in women's sports - & insuring that the female category is for athletes who actually are female - has written to WA to ask for clarification of the contradictions between what rule 2.2 says & what was said in court & in the various explanatory documents that WA subsequently released.

This is great news and exactly what I wanted to hear. Well done.

You keep interacting, and at great length, even though it is "apparently" - again - against your principles. I gues that comes with arguing "progressive causes".

You go on and on about some sort of inconsistency or contradiction - you say - in the rules is though this is somehow unfair to these athletes when the rules make it clear the athletes are ineligible because of their testosterone levels, not their chromosomal makeup - whatever that happens to be.

If the issue isn't about whether these athletes should be able to compete, then what is it about? It isn't about the history of the rules. If you don't think the athletes should be entitled to compete then your arguments are merely a form of misplaced pedantry - a lot of smoke and not much else. That is a generous interpretation.

Thanks for that.

It hasn't been deemed as no benefit in Shot Put. There's just not enough data to legally apply a ban to Shot Put or other events. You can be sure that World Athletics would apply the regulation to all events if they could.

If people truly understood, they would have much more sympathy for Semenya if they knew that a 46XX DSD could and often does have more masculine characteristics than does 46XY . But, that would take time and education and frankly, I don't believe IAAF wanted people to really understand, they wanted it to be as simple as possible and they knew people would agree with XY= male and XX-female, even though that's not what their rules portray since they may have just disqualified 2 XX individuals from female competition. Maybe it's just me, but that's a pretty big story.[/quote]

You have just successfully defended what the rules say, that it is testosterone levels not chromosomes that determine eligibility. We also know, as you have repeatedly made it clear, that the only reason that XX DSD individuals can have male levels of testosterone is that they share a very typical male characteristic - which is a set of working testicles. As Semenya also has. So - no - I doubt that people would be more sympathetic to her case when they know that there are other "women" who also have balls.

That you claim there are XX DSD who are "more masculine" than XY DSD - masculine, in what way? - is the old appearance-based argument that says you can judge who is female by just looking at them - which the "progressives", as you claim to be, have vigorously eschewed. But it is in the context of this argument a specious claim; the issue isn't what any of these women look like but what they possess, which is levels of testosterone that exceed the IAAF limits enabled by the fact that, whether they are XX or XY, they have functioning testes. That is the line most people are likely to agree is crossed that properly affects their eligibility for female sports.

Further, the statistics indicate that the condition that causes XX women to have functioning testes - which you have described as "true hermaphroditism" - is very rare, and more so than XY DSD. Yet you say it is prevalent throughout Africa. So what it is it about Africa that makes it a virtual commonplace? If it is indeed as common as you suggest it is, that isn't an argument for their inclusion in women's sports but that they should have a category of their own. There would be many who would support that.

'The pair have been banned from competing in the women's 400m race at the Tokyo Games. The reasoning: their natural testosterone levels are too high. Christine Mboma was with the duo's coach, Henk Botha, travelling back to their training camp in Italy. When their plane landed, Botha received a call from Namibia's Olympic Committee relaying the news. By the time he was able to call Beatrice Masilingi, his other trainee, she had already found out from social media.'

- This is about as accurate saying Caster Semenya was "banned" - she wasn't. She was advised she could compete if she lowered her levels of testosterone to within the 5nml limit. She refused. It is the same option available to the Namibian athletes. They would have been advised their testosterone levels exceed the permissible limits. That is not a ban. They have a choice. The decision to withdraw them from the Namibian team was that of the Namibian authorities.

'The problem, though, is where to draw the line between a testosterone advantage and other natural, genetic advantages.

Joanna Harper, the author of Sporting Gender, argues: "If you're going to pick one advantage to separate the two categories [female and male], you want to pick an advantage that one group has that the other doesn't. And you pick a biomarker that is widely divergent in the two groups."

There had to be a line of demarcation at some point, and unfortunately Mboma and Masilingi were on the wrong side.

Harper, a transgender athlete herself, says: "It's not an elegant solution by any stretch of the imagination, but it places fairly minimal restrictions on people... It's not elegant, but it's not, to my mind, horribly unreasonable either."'

- In a nutshell.

[i]'World Athletics does not attempt to argue that Mboma and Masilingi, and other female athletes with high testosterone levels, are not women.'

- Their gender as such and even their chromosomal makeup isnt relevant to the discussion.

'"We are committed to fairness for women in sport and reject any allegation that biological limits in the female category are based on race or gender stereotypes," they told the BBC in a written statement.

"On the contrary, they provide an objective and scientific measure to define the female category, and are a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of attaining what both the Court of Arbitration for Sport and the Swiss Federation Tribunal agreed was a legitimate objective."'[/i]

- There was no legal or other subterfuge, to either pull the wool over the eyes of the Court or the public.

RunRagged wrote:

While it is true, as Ray Cyst says, that XX OT DSD appears to occur at unusually high rates in sub-Saharan Africa compared to the rest of the world, this is also the case for a number of XY DSDs, including the ones that are listed in WA rule 2.2. Moreover, it really isn't true that XX OT DSD is prevalent there. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, XX OT DSD remains a very rare DSD. Reports published in medical journals from medical centers in sub-Saharan Africa say that a majority of DSDs there are XY DSDs.

Back to the point, for the 100th time. What IAAF stated in 2019 is not what rule 2.2 says. You know that to be true. With regard to prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa, 46XX is more prevalent with 96.6% of the OT DSD presentations being 46XX rather than 46XY. IAAF specifically lists OT DSD in rule 2.2, which for all practical purposes (96.6% of the time), is 46XX Karyotype in African women. That is why it's important. You clearly know all of this to be true. The rule clearly bans/limits the participation of 46XX African women at a disproportionate rate and was not presented to CAS as such. Whether that's right, wrong, good or bad is something for someone else to determine, they first need to acknowledge that the contradiction exists and I'd love to know why.

With your next post, before you go on a DSD fact quoting spree à la Cliff Clavin, at least start with whether you agree with the paragraph above or not. It makes it easier for me to follow your logic.

You continue to argue that the key issue here is what you see as a contradiction between what the IAAF said in 2019 and what the rules say. When the Semenya case before CAS did not come down to a determination of gender based on chromosomal criteria it is difficult to see how a discussion of XX and XY is ultimately relevant to this issue. It is unlikely CAS might have come to a different decision when chromosomes weren't the subject of the Court's adjudication. There is no reason why the IAAF should have argued before CAS that the rules also affect XX

DSD's. It isnt integral to their case. The rules have not been based on chromosomal distinctions or criteria. So if chromosomes aren't part of the rules why should it be a concern that you see the rules as disproportionately affecting African XX DSD? Why does that matter?

The IAAF has explicitly avoided making the rules a de facto means of determining gender and has removed any reference to chromosomes when referring to DSD's, such as OTD. It is the DSD and its relationship with levels of testosterone that is the bar - and nothing else.

It seems to me that what the IAAF has said or hasn't said on any other occasion is only significant if it affects the rules. It doesn't. They remain clear. They are neither undermined nor misrepresented. The question that remains, as posed by the thread, is whether there is an unfairness that has been visited on the Namibian athletes at the centre of this controversy. Either they should be allowed to compete - as they are, with their present levels of testosterone - or not. Which is it?

Helpful clarification of a number of issues there. I might add that we don't know whether the Namibian athletes concerned have OTD. That has not been stated anywhere. It appears to be an assumption based on a claim they are XX.

I would also reiterate that under the rules it doesn't make their argument for inclusion any stronger that they may be XX, as the rules do not depend on chromosomal definition for determining eligibility.

I am surprised to see it being argued here, that the fact OTD are XX is significant, when the "progressive" argument for inclusion is that chromosomes should not be used to determine gender and thus eligibility (which is also the IAAF position).

For anyone wanting to understand this entire thread, here it is in a nutshell. Posted by RunRagged and true:

"the only reason the CAS upheld the DSD regulations (first set forth in 2018) is that IAAF/World Athletics said in the court proceedings that the DSD regs apply only to athletes who are 46,XY."

During the course of the proceedings before the CAS, the IAAF explained that, following an amendment to the DSD Regulations, the DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to “46 XY DSD” – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes. Accordingly, no individuals with XX chromosomes are subjected to any restrictions or eligibility conditions under the DSD Regulations.

Now, with all that in mind:

Rule 2.2 lists ovotesticular DSD.

96.6% - 97% of ovotesticular DSD cases in Africa occur as 46XX Karyotype.

They told CAS it would only affect 46XY DSD

Rule 2.2 States it affects 46XX DSD

Question to WA

Why did you tell CAS that only 46XY DSDs would be affected by your DSD rules when rule 2.2 includes a DSD that presents as 46XX 96.6-97% of the time in African women.

Simple question.

Ray Cyst wrote:

Question to WA

Why did you tell CAS that only 46XY DSDs would be affected by your DSD rules when rule 2.2 includes a DSD that presents as 46XX 96.6-97% of the time in African women.

Simple question.

‘The DSD Regs only apply to Relevant Athletes, i.e. athletes who meet the criteria set out at 2.2(a)’, confirmed Jonathan Taylor, one of the authors of the Regulations. ‘And only 46 XY DSD athletes will meet those criteria. A 46 XX athlete could have an ovotesticular DSD, but she would not have enough testicular tissue to produce testosterone anywhere near 5 nmol/L.’

Internet Dummy wrote:

Ray Cyst wrote:

Question to WA

Why did you tell CAS that only 46XY DSDs would be affected by your DSD rules when rule 2.2 includes a DSD that presents as 46XX 96.6-97% of the time in African women.

Simple question.

https://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/dsd-regulations-call-out-athletes-as-biologically-male/

‘The DSD Regs only apply to Relevant Athletes, i.e. athletes who meet the criteria set out at 2.2(a)’, confirmed Jonathan Taylor, one of the authors of the Regulations. ‘And only 46 XY DSD athletes will meet those criteria. A 46 XX athlete could have an ovotesticular DSD, but she would not have enough testicular tissue to produce testosterone anywhere near 5 nmol/L.’

False!

46XX ovotesticular DSD can be a full blown males with normal male testosterone levels. If it isn't possible for the condition to occur, why did they list it?

Excerpt from link below:

"A 19-year-old male presented with progressive bilateral breast enlargement for the past 4 years. He had no concomitant urologic or systemic complaints. History of the growth and development was normal with pubic hair being recorded at the age of 13 years. The patient described having erections but no experience of sexual activity."

"Physical examination revealed an apparently healthy male weighing 58 kg and 163 cm tall. The amount of facial and axillary hair was normal."

"Hormone testing revealed normal levels of total testosterone (322 ng/dl) and estradiol (28 pg/ml) for a male."

"The cytogenetic analysis of the karyotype was performed using peripheral blood, and the analysis showed the genotype 46, XX. "

From the article:

FALSE!

Absolutely false!

Demonstrably false!

This is complete doublespeak. They wrote OT DSD into 2.2(A) for a reason. If it was impossible for a 46XX DSD individual to have 5 nmol/L of circulating testosterone, why did they bother putting it into the rules? Why is OT DSD with circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or above and sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a material androgenising effect, listed as one of the conditions that is subject to the DSD regulations, if that particular DSD could never be subject to the DSD regulations because it could never happen?

That's doublespeak! It's also a lie.

They missed one! OT DSD is still part of rule 2.2(a) and it's a 46XX DSD as they readily admit.

Here's another presentation and case study:

Excerpts:

"The patient was born full-term to a primiparous 21-year-old mother who experienced a slight increase in abdominal hirsutism during the pregnancy. Ambiguous genitalia were discovered at birth:"

"Ultrasound revealed a well-developed uterus and vagina, and left inguinal and right pelvic gonads without discernable ovarian follicles. Peripheral blood karyotype was 46,XX,"

"At day of life (DOL) 6, plasma testosterone was 77 ng/dL"

Plasma testosterone remained high (113 ng/dL) after dexamethasone suppression of adrenal function that lowered DHEAS to <15 and cortisol to <0.3 μg/dL. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHag) testing on DOL 12 revealed adult male range serum luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormone (LH, FSH), and testosterone before and after stimulation,

"Evidence of testicular function in a 46,XX DSD newborn suggested ovotesticular DSD, although there was no evidence of functioning ovarian tissue."

"A full-term 46,XX neonate with genital ambiguity produced serum testosterone and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels appropriate for males within days,"

This newborn required medical intervention, something not available in all parts of the world.

There are literally hundreds of case studies like these.

IAAF/ WA is wrong!

They are either lazy, corrupt or just flat out liars. Possibly all 3.

At least maybe now people will stop saying that they never mentioned chromosomes in their rules. Not only did they mention it, they based their entire rules on it in a very unethical way. The "it's all about testosterone" is an obvious lie, it's clearly about them defining what constitutes being a woman and that is exactly what CAS would not have permitted them to do and what they assured CAS they would not do.

Any lawyers out there for these women? Hit me up, this is an easy one.

Ray Cyst wrote:

There are literally hundreds of case studies like these.

IAAF/ WA is wrong!

They are either lazy, corrupt or just flat out liars. Possibly all 3.

At least maybe now people will stop saying that they never mentioned chromosomes in their rules. Not only did they mention it, they based their entire rules on it in a very unethical way. The "it's all about testosterone" is an obvious lie, it's clearly about them defining what constitutes being a woman and that is exactly what CAS would not have permitted them to do and what they assured CAS they would not do.

Any lawyers out there for these women? Hit me up, this is an easy one.

Although you're clearly obsessed with getting these athletes in to these events in order to ruin women's sport, I'm going to presume you're missing something.

Somebody with genuine expertise in the subject (Semenya's lot spent a lot of money fighting this) would have uncovered all these so called loopholes by now.

Occam's razor in this case states that you're wrong and World Athletics have covered all the bases as well as they can.

Not sure what your end game is here, but it will be the end of women's athletics in events dominated by athletes with rare DSDs.

Standard females are often drawing dead when they line up with DSD athletes. See Caster S. if you require any evidence of this.