RunRagged wrote:
As for your claim that the extreme rarity of OT DSD "is irrelevant" to the case of Mboma and Masilingi because of tall women in the NBA, I don't think that's a convincing argument for the likelihood that two DSD athletes of the same age from the same country - who just happened to have been discovered and trained by the same coach - both are XX with the most vanishingly rare of all already rare DSDs.
Then again, it is possible. But given the level of corruption and mendacity in elite international sports, the particular politics of Namibia before and following its independence from South Africa, and the geopolitical and symbolic significance of DSD athletes from sub-Saharan Africa in women's international athletics since Semenya was put on the world stage in 2009, I'd wager it's more likely that the Namibian sports officials are lying their asses off just like South African sports officials have done for years about Caster Semenya.
Also, you did not address my salient material points: 1) for persons with XX OT DSD to produce male levels of T they have to have de facto testes; 2) for the WA rules to apply to persons with OT DSD, they would also have to the ability to make use of the male levels of endogenous T their de facto testes make as males typically do, meaning at least in that regard they'd have male physiology; and 3) persons with XX OT DSD who have de facto testes that produce male levels of T and who respond to endogenous T as males typically do are customarily regarded and raised as males, and see themselves as male - thus they are unlikely to be claiming to be female, or to "identify as" female, in order to compete in elite international women's sports.
(Although I admit that in the case of 3), when the prospect of sports gold and glory is dangled in front of their eyes, teenage DSD athletes from very poor and provincial backgrounds who were raised as males and always thought of themselves as male growing up can be convinced to claim otherwise, which appears to have happened in Caster Semenya's case.)
Finally, the elephant in the room you keep ignoring - or are unable to grasp - is that once laws and regulations are written and set in place, those tasked with enforcing said laws and regs usually issue implementation and guidance documents spelling out exactly how the laws and regs are to be interpreted and applied. Then court decisions inevitably follow that clarify the interpretation and application criteria further. Sometime courts narrow the application criteria; sometimes courts expand it. Sometimes courts throw out laws and regs entirely, striking them down as entirely unlawful.
What's happened here is: Following the Dutee Chand case, WA issued new regulations governing the eligibility of DSD athletes in women's competition. Caster Semenya challenged the new regulations in court. In the process of the court proceedings, WA clarified to the Court of Arbitration for Sport that they apply the regulations more narrowly than the regulations are written, meaning only to XY 46 DSD athletes. In its final decision, CAS states it approved the regulations specifically based on the proviso that they would be "limited to 46 XY DSD" conditions and "no individuals with XX chromosomes" would be affected.
This is clearly stated in the Executive Summary of the CAS decision in the Semenya case already posted upthread:
6. 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.
23. Having carefully considered the expert evidence, the majority of the Panel concludes that androgen sensitive female athletes with 46 XY DSD enjoy a significant performance advantage over other female athletes without such DSD, and that this advantage is attributable to their exposure to levels of circulating testosterone in the normal adult male range, rather than the normal adult female range. The majority of the Panel observes that the evidence concerning the performances and statistical over-representation of female athletes with 46 XY DSD in certain Relevant Events demonstrates that the elevated testosterone levels that such athletes possess creates a significant and often determinative performance advantage over other female athletes who do not have a 46 XY DSD condition.
24. On this basis, the majority of the Panel accepts that the IAAF has discharged its burden of establishing that regulations governing the ability of female athletes with 46XY DSD to participate in certain events are necessary to maintain fair competition in female athletics...
It could be argued that CAS made an error in approving the WA regulations based on the proviso that they'd only be applied to DSD athletes with XY chromosomes. But that's what they did all the same. If you have an issue with what CAS decided, I suggest you contact the organization and each of the individuals who served on the panel in the Semenya case to tell them how "criminally stupid" they are. The panelists' names are in the decision, and contact info is available on the CAS website. If you inform CAS and the panel members that their "criminal stupidity" has forced you to "to step in" and perform the "public service" of insulting and hectoring them into seeing things as you do, I'm sure they'll agree that it's high time their "education process starts" and that you are exactly the guy to teach 'em.
This is an example of why I call you stupid, you have an inability to focus and possibly a reading comprehension issue. You want to have a discussion on the merits of the rule, whereas I merely pointed out the inaccuracy of your assertion that the rule only affected XY individuals, therefore the Namibian runners must be XY. You were wrong and what WA said is untrue, they could in fact be XX and still subject to the rule and the rarity of the DSD is absolutely Irrelevant. As I posted in that other thread on this topic, I have no idea if they are XX or XY and neither do you. I have an opinion as to their status and whether they should be allowed to run, but that's not what this thread was about. There is nothing else to talk about. If you want to argue with someone about the merits of the case, whether they are XX or XY, whether they should be allowed to run, or any other issues none of us have personal knowledge of or any basis for an informed opinion, Armstronglivs is your guy; argue with him, it's his expertise.
Good luck.
Have fun.