This won't work. People who are XY and have an SRY gene can have varying degrees of androgen insensitivity, all the way to complete androgen insensitivity. Literally every single thing about them fits into the bimodal definition of "female" except for two things - no ovaries, and no uterus. They often have very high levels of testosterone, which doesn't do anything to them because they don't have functioning androgen receptors and the negative feedback system doesn't work. So, you can't even use their testosterone level to ban them. The vast majority of these women find out their genetic make up and reality only once they either cannot get pregnant or reach and age old enough to be concerned about never having a period.
You are conflating the age at which women begin to worry about not being able to get pregnant with the age at which girls get concerned about never having a period.
[…mostly blather]
You are the one conflating, The Stache isn’t. Typical RunRagged post that will jump on some deliberate misinterpretation of the writer’s words and wax eloquent condescendingly for several paragraphs on basic facts that any adult — especially someone speaking in a nuanced manner in complete sentences on the topic — would obviously know, and furthermore, the point itself being belabored would be unsubstantive to the issue either way. And it will be peppered seemingly with self-proclaimed expertise on the topic on account of being a menstruating woman and mother.
I'm all for limiting women's competition to biological women, because the category was created to allow women a chance and without that limitation, we'd be back to the days of Semenya, Niyonsaba, and Wambui going 1-2-3 every race. But testosterone levels alone do not define athletic success. It's just too simplistic a claim. You'd be closer if you defined it chromosomally, because there are dozens, probably hundreds, of differences between men and women from brain structure to nervous system to muscular development, bone structure, hormones, and many others. But there are exceptions, somewhere between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100 where there may be an extra chromosome or a disorder of sexual development. Those raised as girls may be chromosomally male, like the 800m runners, and they may have two x and one y, or two y and one x, or they may have high testosterone but the inability to use it like the Indian athlete. The reason that the exceptions matter is that rules may not exclude them and they may have major advantages. That may include testosterone but it may not. It can also include past testosterone. Testosterone suppression will not annul hundreds of differences from puberty and earlier, which is why testosterone alone is not going to eliminate the trans-athletes taking hormone blockers but still having an advantage. This is why you can't get away with just saying it's all about testosterone.
You are conflating the age at which women begin to worry about not being able to get pregnant with the age at which girls get concerned about never having a period.
[…mostly blather]
You are the one conflating, The Stache isn’t. Typical RunRagged post that will jump on some deliberate misinterpretation of the writer’s words and wax eloquent condescendingly for several paragraphs on basic facts that any adult — especially someone speaking in a nuanced manner in complete sentences on the topic — would obviously know, and furthermore, the point itself being belabored would be unsubstantive to the issue either way. And it will be peppered seemingly with self-proclaimed expertise on the topic on account of being a menstruating woman and mother.
The advantage is male puberty - caused by testosterone. Semenya went through male puberty due to his working testes. He looks and sounds like a man because of male puberty.
Testosterone is a powerful thing, even when males don't have extremely high levels of it. The testosterone male babies receive in utero are just the start of the physical advantages that males have from birth. Even among 8 year old children, males outperform females in all athletic events.
From my understanding of Ross Tucker's analysis of the Semenya case, Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is the most likely scenario for her. My guess is this is the type of scenario for many of the DSD women athletes under current scrutiny, if they are in fact DSD athletes.
No. Semenya does not have PAIS. She has 5-ARD. Both are covered by the current DSD regulations, but they are different conditions.
In Chand v. IAAF, expert witnesses representing Chand made an argument that she did not have the same advantage as other XY athletes because of her PAIS. Both CAS and IAAF accepted that argument.
In Semenya v. IAAF, Semenya's expert witness tried to make the same argument, and IAAF completely disagreed. Semenya's DSD affected her genitalia, but not her athletic ability. She is not as fast as Rudisha simply because she isn't as exceptional as Rudisha. There are many men with 1:54 800m PB. They are serious athletes, they just aren't as talented as Rudisha.
CAS did not make judgement on this point in Semenya case, and simply said it was irrelevant. Whether Semenya had the same advantage as other XY athletes or not, her advantage is still large enough to cause competitive unfairness.
Thanks for the clarification on Semenya. I admittedly did not follow the sport closely for a number of years, and was a bit out of the loop on the findings of her case.
Interestingly, there is a population of 5-ARD people in Dominican Republic referred to as "guevodoces". Basically, they're raised as girls because of their indeterminate genitalia, and around 12 or so their male genitalia start to grow, and they become boys/men after that.
The science isn't there. The big problem has been that when you start testing all the women athletes, you start finding athletes who on the surface appear to be cis gender, "all female" biologically but actually have chromosomal abnormalities or outlier levels of testosterone. ///
There are no normal women with elevated testosteron. They either have a DSD or a medical condition. No normal woman has T in the male range.
That is a reasonable point Heneie. It is quite possible that testosterone use was rampant in the days before they even tested for it. But I suppose weedy looking middle distance runners with a bit more muscle did not look too masculine. and were good for the sport.
And I totally agree, probably no one would argue women with CAIS participating in women's sports.
No "reasonable" person, that is. There are many right-wing cultural warrior types on this board who think no person with XY should be allowed to compete against women.
Their definition of a woman is probably something like "a person I can impregnate."
It's Hotel California Dear Friend. You posted on this thread. So according to the Eagles, you've already checked in. Good luck ever getting out of here. I don't know you from having back and fort posts between us, however I do read your posts.
Hotel California is, if you didn't know, is a metaphor for your life. It causes pause to reflect where you've been and where you're going.
It's Hotel California Dear Friend. You posted on this thread. So according to the Eagles, you've already checked in. Good luck ever getting out of here. I don't know you from having back and fort posts between us, however I do read your posts.
Hotel California is, if you didn't know, is a metaphor for your life. It causes pause to reflect where you've been and where you're going.
Love it! You can check out, but you can never leave...
CAS did not make judgement on this point in Semenya case, and simply said it was irrelevant. Whether Semenya had the same advantage as other XY athletes or not, her advantage is still large enough to cause competitive unfairness.
Have there been any public updates on her appeal with the European Court against the Swiss supreme court’s finding?
The science isn't there. The big problem has been that when you start testing all the women athletes, you start finding athletes who on the surface appear to be cis gender, "all female" biologically but actually have chromosomal abnormalities or outlier levels of testosterone. ///
There are no normal women with elevated testosteron. They either have a DSD or a medical condition. No normal woman has T in the male range.
I happen to be eating lunch with two physicians and one is an endocrinologist. She is saying that this is true that there is a "normal" range of testosterone for women and we could implement a policy that says all women competing must be within that range. She indicated that the problem is that approximately 5% of women do not naturally fall within that range and the vast majority of those women are not experiencing a medical condition. Extrapolating that math, there were 465 women that qualified for the US Marathon Oly Trials in 2020. Over 20 of these women on average would fall outside the normal range. What do we do in their case? Tell them that they can't run? Raise the cutoff of normal female testosterone levels? Make them take hormones to reduce their natural testosterone levels in order to compete? She also said that some men without medical issues have naturally low testosterone, but don't have medical conditions. What if a fraction of these men fall in the women's range? Can they compete with the women? Unfortunately there is no simple scientific test yet that doesn't leave some poor group of people left out. Of course, testing for chromosomes is even less effective.
From my understanding of Ross Tucker's analysis of the Semenya case, Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is the most likely scenario for her. My guess is this is the type of scenario for many of the DSD women athletes under current scrutiny, if they are in fact DSD athletes.
No. Semenya does not have PAIS. She has 5-ARD. Both are covered by the current DSD regulations, but they are different conditions.
In Chand v. IAAF, expert witnesses representing Chand made an argument that she did not have the same advantage as other XY athletes because of her PAIS. Both CAS and IAAF accepted that argument.
In Semenya v. IAAF, Semenya's expert witness tried to make the same argument, and IAAF completely disagreed. Semenya's DSD affected her genitalia, but not her athletic ability. She is not as fast as Rudisha simply because she isn't as exceptional as Rudisha. There are many men with 1:54 800m PB. They are serious athletes, they just aren't as talented as Rudisha.
CAS did not make judgement on this point in Semenya case, and simply said it was irrelevant. Whether Semenya had the same advantage as other XY athletes or not, her advantage is still large enough to cause competitive unfairness.
The conversation about Semenya's athletic ability and testosterone is kind of a moot point as Semenya is not a woman. He had underdeveloped male external sex characteristics, so he was raised to think he was a woman, but he was not biologically a woman and therefor shouldn't compete as one. 5-ARD is a developmental disorder that occurs in males. It's tragic that he found out about his condition this way, but this is not as complicated as everybody thinks it is; administrators within these athletic organizations are just unwilling to make decisions that may be seen as unpopular.
There are no normal women with elevated testosteron. They either have a DSD or a medical condition. No normal woman has T in the male range.
I happen to be eating lunch with two physicians and one is an endocrinologist. She is saying that this is true that there is a "normal" range of testosterone for women and we could implement a policy that says all women competing must be within that range. She indicated that the problem is that approximately 5% of women do not naturally fall within that range and the vast majority of those women are not experiencing a medical condition. Extrapolating that math, there were 465 women that qualified for the US Marathon Oly Trials in 2020. Over 20 of these women on average would fall outside the normal range. What do we do in their case? Tell them that they can't run? Raise the cutoff of normal female testosterone levels? Make them take hormones to reduce their natural testosterone levels in order to compete? She also said that some men without medical issues have naturally low testosterone, but don't have medical conditions. What if a fraction of these men fall in the women's range? Can they compete with the women? Unfortunately there is no simple scientific test yet that doesn't leave some poor group of people left out. Of course, testing for chromosomes is even less effective.
The World Athletics rules on testosterone apply only to DSD athletes, not to biological females. None of the expected 20 women with out-of-range T levels would be impacted by hormone rules.
I'm guessing Coe's motivation for the statement was watching Semenya in the 5K and Getachew in the steeplechase, where everyone noticed that they did not fit in with the other competitors. Yes it is okay to tighten the standards so they don't compete with women, but they also don't belong competing against men. They need a separate category but still need to be allowed to compete somewhere.
I'm all for limiting women's competition to biological women, because the category was created to allow women a chance
That's not true, women's sport exists because they were deliberately excluded. It's not the case the nice sports authorities decided to include a women's category to "give them a chance". Women's sport arose out of the opposite - out of exclusion and banning.
