World Athletics Sex Testing

Seb Coe said the WA council has agreed to follow all the "Recommendations to the eligibility conditions for the Female Category" made by the WA's "Working Group on Gender Diverse Athletes" that were set out in the document WA published and put out for consultation on February 10.

This means WA is going to get rid of the current loophole that allows XY/SRY-positive DSD athletes like Semenya and Christine Mboma to compete in the women's category if they lower their serum testosterone level to under 2.5 nmol/L for a period of time beforehand.

Page 5:

Recommendation 3: Merge the DSD and Transgender Regulations and, if the effect is to restrict opportunities for DSD athletes, adopt measures to address the reasonable reliance interests of those who are currently in the pipeline.

This recommendation proposes that, in its eligibility rules for the Female Category, World Athletics treat alike all androgen-sensitive XY athletes.

The current TG Regulations exclude transgender women who have experienced male puberty, while the DSD Regulations provide that XY DSD athletes with the same experience are included.

The Working Group also proposes the adoption of measures to address any reasonable reliance interests DSD athletes may have as a result of new restrictions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the reasoning given in for WA's decision to change tack, from pp 2-3:

a. New evidence has clarified that testosterone suppression in 46XY DSD and 46XY transgender individuals can only ever partly mitigate the overall male advantage in the sport of Athletics.

b. Evidence has accumulated that makes clear that an exclusive focus on male puberty is wrong:

i. New evidence clarifies that there is already an athletically significant performance gap
before the onset of puberty. The childhood or pre-pubertal performance gap in the
sport of Athletics specifically is 3 to 5% in running events, and higher in throwing and
jumping events.

ii. New evidence establishes that athletic disadvantages associated with female body
structure and physiology contribute to the performance gap.

c. There is no new countervailing evidence that would suggest that transgender women and androgen sensitive XY DSD athletes are biologically different to each other in relation to the design and goals of the Female Category.

d. There has been some opposition to testosterone suppression as a condition for eligibility in the Female Category.

i. Some XY DSD athletes and medical ethicists are concerned about the medical risk-
benefit calculus for athletes with XY DSD who do not experience gender dysphoria and
would not undergo treatment if it was not to comply with the sport’s testosterone
suppression requirements.

ii. Some human rights experts are concerned about the cost-benefit calculus of
undergoing T suppression treatment, both medically and competitively, for XY DSD
athletes.

e. Some human rights experts have also become concerned about the human rights of female athletes. For example, the October 2024 Special Rapporteur’s report to the UN General Assembly was unambiguously against testosterone suppression requirements and expressly supportive of an exclusive Female category to protect female athletes’ rights to one-for-one equality and a level playing field. To address the rights of female athletes, the report recommends a “dignified, swift, non-invasive and accurate sex screening method (such as a cheek swab) or, where necessary for exceptional reasons, [further] genetic testing”.

f. Available surveys of both the general population and elite female athletes show strong
opposition, either steady or growing, to XY athletes competing in the Female Category.

No trans athlete has ever been unfairly disqualified from anything. No trans athlete has ever been banned from competing. There are, however, cases where a trans athlete tried to sneak into a category other than the one corresponding to their sex.

I listened to that podcast series when it aired on NPR. Or rather, I listened to part of it. I took most of it in by reading/skimming the published transcripts.

What information in that podcast series do you think those of us who are in favor of protecting the female category by screening athletes for the SRY gene - using a cheek swab and/or a drop of blood from a fingerprick put on blotter paper - don't know about and we need to be schooled on?

This is all very depressing and regressive for the trans and DSD people.

woah

i cannot wait for the sex testing

The category is for women (XX chromosomes). Anyone else is free to compete in the men’s category. If you want more categories, that’s what you should be fighting for. The women’s category is for XX chromosomes women only. If you are not an XX chromosome woman, you can compete in the men’s section or participate in non competitive/recreational sports. Competitive sports have no duty of care for people with gender dysphoria or sexual development disorders. The days of men competing in the women’s division is over!

my chinese friend went through canadian emmigration sometime ago.

they asked sex?

confused, she said yes.

All of the DSD runners are already required to reduce the testosterone produced by their testes to such a low level that they are no longer competitive at an international level with runners with ovaries.

So this ruling doesn't really make that much of a difference because most of the DSD runners have retired.

I mean, if you're in the testing pool, you're regularly getting urine tested.

That involves a tester watching the urine exit your genitals.

So even this wouldn't be anything new. People just like to sensationalise.

Taking blood is far more invasive, and also detrimental to performance.

OK... It's a long one...

But, you asked...

The proposed test (cheek swab) does not test for the SRY gene, the Barr body test, named after it's inventor Murray Barr, screens for the presence of an inactive X chromosome (Barr body) in cells. The SRY gene, found on the Y chromosome is tested using PCR analysis, not the Barr body test.

What would you need to know or be schooled on? Well, you would have to accept that there are cisgender females that have a Y chromosome in some or all of their cells. (See Swyer Syndrome) You would have to accept that there are more females out there with Y chromosomes than you think and discriminating against them because they don't fit into an antiquated testing method, is immoral, unethical and most likely illegal. Swyer syndrome accounts for 1 in 80,000 births and while that's very rare, that's still 4,250 women in the United States alone. Since women with Swyer Syndrome tend to be taller, leaner and more athletic, there would naturally be a higher prevalence in track & field.

The relevant part of the podcast starts at 20:48 - Here's a bit of the text.

"And even if you did think that men were sneaking into women’s competitions, this chromosome test wasn’t even a good way to catch them. Remember in episode one we talked about all the ways that human biology can vary, some cisgender men can have XX chromosomes, and some cisgender women can have Y chromosomes, and this can happen in some or all of person cells. It’s really hard to know how common this is because many women born with Y chromosomes will live their whole lives, not knowing they have them. Even Murray Barr, the guy who invented this test, warned against using it in this way. In 1956 he wrote that sex chromosomes are “a minor detail in the femaleness or maleness of the whole person." So, using this test wouldn’t catch cheaters, but it would catch women who didn’t have the second X and tell them that according to science they were not women."

Women with Swyer syndrome have female external genitalia and some female internal reproductive structures. These women usually have a uterus and fallopian tubes, but their ovaries are not functional. These women would fail the cheek swab test and be told they are not women.

It was once believed that the Earth was flat (some still do) and that Earth was the center of the universe. We know better now and it's time people realize that XY and XX is a mere part of what determines maleness and femaleness, not the whole shebang. I know it's hard for people to unlearn what they have learned, and I get it. I don't like men in women's sports either and am not for transgenders competing against women, but this test is not the solution. I personally know of 1 woman that has competed for Team USA on the world stage (multiple times) that has Swyer syndrome and would be banned from competition. I'm sure there are others.

FWIW, I'd be less critical if the criteria for female participation was "assigned female at birth," which would exclude transgender females, but not unintentionally discriminate against other cisgender women. It's not a great solution, but I could live with that.

People can believe me, or not believe me, I'm not in the mood to argue with people who know less than I do, so I don't plan on participating in a debate. 😂

Do with this information as you please.

I know "XX=female" is a convenient and popular shorthand, but in fact it's misleading to say that "the women's category is for XX chromosome women only."

Whilst the vast majority of female human beings have a 46,XX sex chromosome pattern, one out of every 1,000 of us are 47,XXX. Another one out of every 2-2,500 of us are 45,X0 or largely 45,X0 with mosaicism.

To protect the integrity of the female category in track and field, World Athletics will be screening athletes to see if they have or don't have the SRY gene.

The SRY gene, aka "the testis determining factor," plays a key role in male development and it's almost always on the Y chromosome. So it's a good proxy for maleness.

But every once in a blue moon, someone with one of the karyotypes most commonly found in males - such as 46,XY or 47,XXY - will have a Y chromosome that's missing the SRY gene in whole or in part. And every so often, albeit with equal rarity, someone with only X chromosomes will end up with an SRY gene in whole or in part on one of their X chromosomes.

If you want a convenient shorthand to replace "XX=female," it would be more accuate to say that female human beings are characterized by "X only" sex chromosomes. Or even more accurate, that females humans have "no Y, no SRY."

Although neither of those shorthands is really accurate in the final analysis, because growing a pair of ovaries and developing as genuinely and fully female actually requires that a number of female-specific genes have to be switched on and come into play.

Back to World Athletics new policy: my understanding is that under the forthcoming new rules, individuals with the SRY gene will be able to gain eligibility for the female category if

a) their SRY gene is inactive or broken, and as a result when they were fetuses, they never developed testes capable of producing male levels of testosterone in the first place (XY gonadal dysgenesis, aka Swyer syndrome);

or

b) their SRY gene is functional and so as fetuses, they did develop testes that produce male levels of testosterone, but their cells/tissues have never been able to utliize/respond to the large amounts of testosterone that their testes pump(ed) out because they have a genetic mutation that's caused their androgen receptors to be totally disabled (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome).

Relax. Athletes will be allowed to file a protest if they have a medical reason to believe that this new ruling is treating them unfairly.

I know I said I was not going to debate, but I knew this would come up and I forgot to address this.

Most women with Swyer Syndrome don't even find out until puberty, if at all, and usually from lack of menstruation. Imagine being an 18 year old who has never had her period, which, like it or not, isn't that uncommon in an elite female athlete and they qualify for the Olympic Trials, only to be sex tested and told they are not female. What a lovely way to find out! The test is invasive in it's purpose, if not in it's administration. Filing a protest, as you say, or appealing as others have said, is cause for further invasive procedures that no one wants to, or will go through to "prove" they are female. I know some of you out there think that women with DSDs like Swyer syndrome don't "look like" women, but you would be dead wrong. Women with Swyer Syndrome present with a typical female appearance. They generally have smaller breasts and a lack of menstrual cycle, which TBH, is literally every distance runner ever. Not trying to be crass, but just attempting to make a point. Sex testing women is a bad idea in principle and in practice.

Rules are made to suit the majority not the .000001 percent minority of people with sexual development disorders. The category is for XX females. Anyone else can compete with the men or choose to participate at the recreation level. No one is excluded from the sport. However, the women’s category is restricted to XX chromosome women. Plenty of marathons have a third gender category. Maybe that’s the future. However, the women’s category is restricted to XX chromosome women. That’s the reality and it’s what the vast majority of people want. If you don’t agree with it, no one is stopping you from applying for leadership positions. If that’s your platform, you have your work cut out for you to change people’s minds on this issue. Most people don’t want men in women’s sports, restroom, and other protected spaces.

Thank you for responding.

Sorry to break it to you, but you're the one who's really misinformed here. The screening that WA will be instituting will check for the SRY gene.

Below is a copy & paste of the relevant text from the document "Recommendations to the eligibility conditions for the Female Category" that World Athletics published and put out for consultation on February 10 that I quoted from in an earlier post. Page 5:

Recommendation 4: Adopt a pre-clearance requirement for all athletes competing in the Female Category.

This recommendation proposes that in advance of and as a pre-condition for any athlete’s competition in the Female Category at elite level, World Athletics should be in possession of test results that establish their eligibility. The required test will be for the SRY gene and, if required, testosterone levels, either via cheek swab with any necessary follow-up or via dry blood spot analysis. In this context the SRY gene, which is almost always on the Y chromosome, is used as a highly accurate proxy for biological sex but makes room for an additional diagnostic process at the athlete’s discretion.

Unfortunately, World Athletics has only published the document in PDF form, so I can't give a direct link to it here. But you can easily download if from the WA website. It's the first document on the page linked to below under the heading "Consultations."

worldathletics.org

Member Federation Resource Centre | Official Documents

Information concerning national World Athletics Member Federations.You can also view the Constitution and Competition Rules under the Book of Rules.

Open link

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the Barr body test: it went out of use in most contexts ages ago, and stopped being used for sex verification in sports nearly 35 years ago.

I've been having serious discussions about this topic and and been heavily campaigning for a return to sex testing for nearly a decade - maybe more. And you'e the the first person I've come across in recent years who has claimed that if DNA sex screening is brought back, then Barr body will be the method of anyalysis used. AFAIK, that's not even a remote possibility!

When the IOC was still doing cheek swab DNA sex testing of athletes seeking eligibility for women's competition in the 1990s, they abandoned the earlier methods that looked for Barr bodies and instead went with newer, more sophisticated methods that checked for the SRY gene.

In 1991, the IOC decided to replace the Barr body analysis that previously had been used with PCR analysis for the SRY gene locus. The new DNA analysis was done on cells obtained in the same way they were obtained in the past - by using a swab to quickly rub the flesh of the cheeks inside the mouth, aka "buccal smear" or "cheek swab."

All athletes in the women's categry at the 1992 Barcelona Games were screened for SRY, for a total of more than 2000 tests. Six athletes were reported to be positive for SRY, but no further details have ever been divulged about what the situation with those athletes was or whether they were cleared to compete or denied the chance.

At the 1996 Atlanta Games, more than 3,000 athletes who turned out to compete in women's sports were screened. Eight were positive for SRY. Four reportedly had Partial Androgen Insensitivity syndrome (PAIS); three had Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). The final athlete had XY 5-ARD, Caster Semenya's DSD. All athletes found to have the SRY at the Atlanta Games were allowed to compete.

Interestingly, six of the eight athletes found to be SRY positive at the Atlanta Games had undergone surgery to remove their testes. So presumably, they already knew what their sex chromosomes were and that they had DSDs which meant they weren't techincally female - the news did not come as a shock that caught them totally unawares and unprepared and left them shaken and devastated the way we're constantly led to believe.

It keeps the Semenyas of the world out of women's races and I think that's a good thing.

It would also keep the Saras of the world out too.

Open image

Oh stop with the BS.

All the material about Sara Forsberg available online says Forsberg has an extremely rare DSD known as Swyer syndrome, aka XY gonadal dysgenesis. This means Forsberg never developed functioning testes in utero or at any point later on, and therefore never produced or was affected by male levels of endogenous testosterone.

World Athletics' forthcoming regulations are only aimed at excluding from the female category DSD athletes with male chromosomes and genetics who meet the following criteria:

a) during early development, they grew a pair of functioning testes or single testis that produce, or previously produced, the high levels of endogenous testosterone that are normally found only in males

and

b) they also have enough male androgen receptors in sufficiently good working order that their cells/tissues are able to respond to and utilize the lamount of testosterone in their systems in a male-typical way, aka by becoming "virilized."

In a previous post on this very page, I pointed out that XY athletes with Swyer syndrome and CAIS will not be excluded under the new rules, just as they're not excluded or restrictd under the current rules.

To repeat:

Individuals who test positive for the SRY gene will be able to gain eligibility for the female category if they fit either one of these two descriptions:

a) their SRY gene is inactive or broken, or another gene involved in testis formation doesn't work properly, and as a result they never developed testes capable of producing male levels of testosterone in the first place (XY gonadal dysgenesis, aka Swyer syndrome);

or

b) their SRY gene and other genes involved in testes formation are normal and functional and so as fetuses, they did develop testes that produce (or produced) male levels of testosterone, but their cells/tissues have never been able to utliize/respond to the large amounts of testosterone that their testes pump(ed) out because they have a genetic mutation that's caused their androgen receptors to be totally disabled (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome).

There are thousands of Saras, but most never come out for obvious reasons. You are one of those nerds where all you can see is the data and not the people behind the data. If you watched the video, you would have seen that Sara did not find out until she was 16, which is pretty standard for Swyers since suspicions are usually triggered by lack of menstruation. If Sara was a runner, the lack of menstruation probably would not have been as much of an oddity. The point being made is that if she was a runner and found out because of World Athletics testing, that's a serious mind f**k that no one should have to endure.

You casually say you "pointed out that XY athletes with Swyer syndrome and CAIS will not be excluded under the new rules," and then go into all the situations where a person would meet that criteria, without a shred of empathy about the required additional testing someone would have to go through to be made eligible, and prove all those exceptions you mentioned, which is what the issue is. You fail to get the point. These individuals that have these World Athletics acceptable genetic defects, would have no idea they had them until they were tested and they would be devasted to have it revealed in such a way. Surely if they already knew they would not do the test, so it stands to reason that anyone that was identified through the WA testing would be finding out at that moment, in that horrible manner, and that is a problem. Saying they can do further, more invasive testing to make themselves eligible demonstrates that you have completely missed the forest for the trees. I can't even fathom the amount of money WA would be sued for if they tested an 18 year old, told her she was XY and needed further testing to know why and if she was eligible and the next day she killed herself. Can we say problematic?

And finally, Sara and the many others like her, are not XX, they are 46 XY and until there is an actual policy in place from WA, no one knows who they will exclude regardless of what they say now. All I hear from the peanut gallery is that XX means woman and XY means male and that seems to be the sentiment of Lord Coe the Schmoe. If WA does ultimately decide to allow those with Swyer Syndrome and CAIS to compete with women, they are going to have to explain to more than half the population what a woman is, because quite clearly, it's not just XX as they once thought.