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.
If the money and the demand to watch intersex athletes is there, then someone should create a separate league. But to say they "need" to be allowed to compete somewhere is bizarre. Competing in sports is not a god given right that someone "needs."
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 guessing he's also sick of dealing with people like Katrina Karkazis, who took up Caster's case in order to promote her career. Try having a rational, science-based discussion with Karkazis. It's all circular reasoning and question begging. She's an anthropologist, though, not a sociologist. Check out her book, Testosterone: An Unauthorized Biography (co-author Rebecca Jordan-Young). It's typical of the anti-science nonsense coming out of many social science and humanities departments. Alongside the pseudoscience coming from the sector of the academy, you'll find alleged feminist scholars regarding the psychological ramblings of male psychosexual predators as profound feminist insights.
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.
Uh huh, sure it did. Remove the sex classifications and see how "inclusive" the sport becomes for women.
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. The idea that you can have a test that will just weed out the Caster Semenyas who are competitively superior to other female athletes is pretty naive at this point.
Even worse is that some states in the US have enacted gender testing requirements that include very invasive examinations of female genitalia (including taking measurements of a certain part of the body men are notorious for not being able to find) and allow any competitor to call into question whether an athlete is female.
In the end, you are just going to end up with a "I know one when I see one" standard with objective standards only being used when someone is successful competitively.
My Dad, 1980 as the Eastern block doped their way to compeitiveness "you don't need a test, just a couple of people to take one look at their women and know they dope". I had never seen nor heard of the Etheopian steeplechaser last night, one look and I knew she was either trans or had the same rare genetics as Caster. It's not that hard. The progs lives in the world of semantics and obsbucation.
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.
Argue against the points I've made, mate. Focusing on the personality and posting style of the person you disagree with is puerile and a waste of time. Also, harrumphing like that comes off as "tone policing."
…
It’s in my very first sentence above, sweetie. You had no other points relevant to his post and none that refuted anything he actually said. Others pointed out inaccuracies in his post that he graciously accepted, but your retort was built entirely on a foundation of deliberate misinterpretation. That is the point.
I'm not sure when Coe made these comments - might have been yesterday - but he deserves A LOT of praise for standing firm on this. Some of these quotes are amazing.
“We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender. Age because we think it’s better that Olympic champions don’t run against 14-year-olds in community sports. And gender because if you don’t have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event.
“We’ve always been guided by the science, and the science is pretty clear: we know that testosterone is the key determinant in performance. I’m really over having any more of these discussions with second-rate sociologists who sit there trying to tell me or the science community that there may be some issue. There isn’t. Testosterone is the key determinant in performance.”
Current testosterone levels don’t present the complete picture. WA’s own commissioned studies couldn’t confirm testosterone as a performance determinant in some track events unlike others. The “science” could change, but it is where it is at this point.
Whatever. What Coe says is absolutely true on a practical level. People (no matter what you call them) who have, at any time, had male levels of testosterone perform better than those who have not. You don't have to do a study. Look at the results. It is inexplicable that we are willing to ruin women's sports for the sake a handful of athletes.
First, I want to thank you for the information on Semenya. As I pointed out to another poster, I was not following the sport closely when her case came up with the IAAF, and I was not aware of these interviews. That certainly puts a different tilt on that case for sure!
Second, I'd love to have an actual conversation with you about this. You're clearly knowledgeable and clearly passionate about the sport and about this issue. I'm knowledgeable and passionate, too (I'm a physiologist, so I definitely understand the biological principles at play here).
I don't think we may agree on motivations of all the athletes in question here, because I doubt they all have the same kind of history as Semenya, but ultimately, I think we agree on what should be done within our sport.
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.
How common is this? Complete androgen insensitivity is found at 2-5 per 100,000 XY (with SRY gene) births. That's up to 1 per 20,000. Guaranteed you've seen or known someone with this syndrome. They are often tall, slender, and attractive.
Partial androgen insensitivity is at least as common as the total insensitivity that I described above. Again, the person is chromosomally XY, has a functional SRY gene, but has a mutation in the androgen receptor that allows for some partial response to androgens. Their genitalia can look like anything from typically female to typically male, and just about everything in between.
Both of these conditions fall under the umbrella of Disorders of Sexual Differentiation, or DSD as many are throwing about.
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.
I want to address the use of the words men and women when referring to these athletes. They are women. They were identified at birth as girls by their families, by their doctors, by their cultures. They have been raised and brought up as girls and women their entire lives. They have identified as women their entire lives. They did not choose their genetics any more than you or I did. They have always lived and continue to live as women, and that should be recognized. Stop calling them men. I highly doubt any of them decided to engage in athletics as an intentional way to "cheat" as is the implication that many of you are throwing around.
NOW, should the DSD athletes with PAIS be competing in women's sports? Well, probably not without some closer scrutiny, or without some measures taken to control for testosterone levels (since the Partial AIS athletes are still sensitive to androgen in some ways).
See, it is very possible to have a nuanced conversation about this - noting the obvious problem in sport while also recognizing the humanity of the athletes involved. I don't know what the final answer will be for these athletes and for our sport. But we can all at least recognize that these women did not ask for this and be sympathetic to the idea that many may be finding out their genetic makeup through highly publicized and embarrassing testing.
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.
Most girls get their periods between 11 and 13. Some girls start at 8, 9 or 10; others not until 14 or 15. But most girls and their families will have concerns that something might be wrong if a girl turns 14 without starting her periods. I got my period many decades ago a few days after turning 11, the normal age in my family and amongst many peers in my social circle. I had friends and school chums who got anxious and concerned that something was wrong if that they turned 12.5 without getting their periods yet.
By contrast, most women do not get concerned about not being able to get pregnant until after trying in their 20s and 30s.
Also, another telltale tipoff of CAIS in tweens and young teens is that XY persons with CAIS do not develop pubic and underarm hair like XX girls do in puberty of adolescence. Plus, they are taller and usually narrower in the hips than XX females.
But the issue of CAIS in discussions of sports policy beside the point. Most defenders of female-only sports would be willing to make an exception solely for XY persons with CAIS. The new policy of FINA does exactly that.
Also, prominent sports figures with CAIS or close to complete AIS like Maria Jose Martinez Patino don't think athletes with PAIS like Dutee Chand should be competing in the women's category without restriction. Martinez Patino testified against Chand in Chand's case against the IAAF and Indian sports authorities.
I am a women who started my period at 15. My sister started hers at 17. My other sister at 16. My grandmother started hers at 18. I've never met someone who was concerned because they hadn't started their period at 14. I believe your statement to be exaggerated, especially with athletes. I knew many athletes in high school that didn't get their period at all (too much mileage, not enough food intake). However, I agree with all of the other points you made. There are signs.
In a manner of speaking, testosterone "is" the key determinant, since it's the surge of testosterone that changes the male body during puberty.
Absolutely! Science has proven that any XY male that has gone through puberty (or even partially) will retain a permanent advantage physiologically over XX females. The vastly higher levels of testosterone increases the size of the heart, bone density and muscle mass. It is the production of testosterone that gives the average XY male a 10% advantage over XX women in physical, sporting activities.
So, even given the option of competing if she had her internal testes removed, or if she took medication to limit future levels of testosterone, Semenya (and of course all DSD XY athletes) would still retain an advantage over the XX women she compted against. But of course that still wasn't good enough!
I don't think we may agree on motivations of all the athletes in question here, because I doubt they all have the same kind of history as Semenya, but ultimately, I think we agree on what should be done within our sport.
I don't think the guy who is coaching Mboma and Maslingi is "gaming the system." If he were, he would have never entered the two athletes in 400m, because it's already well known they would be ineligible without lowering their t level. Instead, he would enter those two in only 100m and 200m and pretend there is nothing unusual about them. The fact that they have been exposed by running 400m indicates that it was not a calculated scheme.
The history of sex testing in elite sports is long, and even a cursory review of this history would demonstrate the erroneousness of statements like Lord Coe's and Rojo's. There has never been and will never be an easy answer to questions regarding the categories based on sex and gender in sport. Every attempt to find one has failed.
In the early twentieth century, female athletes were subjected to "naked parades" in which they had their genitals inspected by doctors to verify that they were in, fact, biologically female. How humiliating and degrading this was for the athletes needs no further explanation.
Chromosomal and hormonal tests are certainly less crude, but they have proved ineffective as well. Using these tests, athletes who have never once questioned their own femininity nor had it questioned by others were barred from competing. See Maria Patino for a famous example of an athlete who failed one of these "sex tests" and was later reinstated. Situations like this appear multiple times in the history of sex testing in sport, and this is because no single sex test could provide a complete picture of one's biological sex, let alone one's gender identity. For one's biological sex to be of any use in sport, we would need a complete picture of all the biological parameters that determine performance. Without this, any lines drawn are bound to be arbitrary and wrongfully exclude at some people.
As other posters have pointed out, Bolt did not run 9.58 simply because he has higher testosterone than any other male sprinter. Similarly, the only reason that I (a man who has never identified as anything but a man) cannot run 12:59 for 5000m is not because I have less testosterone than an elite runner. Certainly, testosterone plays a large role in performance, but it alone cannot explain why one person is faster than another, and why there is overlap between the running ability of the grand majority of men and women in the world. We would also need a complete picture of each athlete's full biological makeup, likely including physical inspection of their genitals as part of sex verification. Such surveillance would need to be consistent and long-term, as it already is with the rules for transgender athletes who wish to compete in the NCAA. Admittedly, most elite athletes would probably consent to such extensive monitoring and surveillance as they do with drug testing.
Perhaps these are the necessary evils to make elite-level sports entirely "fair." However, I think Lord Coe, Rojo, and others who think similarly should stop and think about what sort of sporting world they would create were they to apply the principles of their rigid, biologically-determined sex worldview consistently, thoroughly, and non-arbitrarily. It would be a sporting world in which the details of athletes' hormonal makeup--including fluctuations that occur with sex, pregnancy, and periods--are monitored and charted to ensure that no one with too much of the wrong thing is allowed to compete with other women. Of course, consistent application would also mean that the men are subjected to the same surveillance. I imagine many of you who might disagree with what I say in this post consider yourselves advocates of small government. You should keep in mind that the maintenance of a rigid gender binary, in sport and in society at large, requires rather intrusive measures on the part of governing bodies to ensure that there are no deviants.
If I were to talk about gender-identity and its social construction in this post, it'd be even longer than it already is, and it would become a conflict about fundamental world views. I can only say that I hope the history of sex testing in sports illuminates the fluidity and ambiguity of what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. I can also say, in regards to a related issue, that you should really stop and ask if these sorts of sex verification tests are the sort of thing we should subject young people who wish to compete in high school or college sports purely for the joy of it. It MAY be the case that it is "unfair" for young trans women to compete with cis women, but is that the most important thing about sports? Is excluding trans, intersex, and others who fit outside of the rigid gender binary worth what it may cost to their self-esteem and place in society?
-OklahomaGuy
P.S. some sources below. Rojo, as LetsRun is one of the most prominent voices in track and field, I think the responsible thing would be for you to read some of this history and other scholarly literature on the topic. I even think reading some social scientific and feminist critiques of the sex testing and the gender binary would be useful, even if only to help you develop your own viewpoint and counterarguments further.
Anna Posbergh, Same Tricks, New Name, The International Journal of Information, Diversity, & Inclusion, Vol. 3, No. 3, Special Issue: Health Justice - Part 1 (July 2019), pp. 88-100
LAUREL WESTBROOK, KRISTEN SCHILT, DOING GENDER, DETERMINING GENDER: Transgender People, Gender Panics, and the Maintenance of the Sex/Gender/Sexuality System, Gender and Society, Vol. 28, No. 1 (February 2014), pp. 32-57
