World Athletics to require gene testing starting September 1

Not so fast.

Variants in the SRY gene have been found in approximately 15 percent of individuals with Swyer syndrome.

medlineplus.gov

Swyer syndrome: MedlinePlus Genetics

@medlineplus

Swyer syndrome is a condition that affects sex development. Explore symptoms, inheritance, genetics of this condition.

Open link

https://bayfc.com/all-players/

Swyer syndrome is estimated to be approximately 1 in 80,000 individuals. This means that it affects about 0.00125% of the population.

So, care to compute 15% of that tiny number?

.0000625

And of that tiny, tiny percent of people, what percent are world class athletes?

And I'd guess there is an appeal that those people (that probably don't exist) can use to challenge their status as determined by the SRY test.

If someone does not agree with the rules governing World Athletics events, they have the freedom to not participate.

Will They Hiltz will comply with this or stand by their convictions? I imagine being “assigned” female would be too traumatic to bear for them, as it was “at birth.”

Anyone who fails this gene test can appeal and request a follow-up test of their choice. I am simply disputing the sweeping claim by the "genetics professor."

CAIS is also extremely rare. But the World Athletics policy already includes a clause that addresses those cases.

For that matter, trans women who did not experience male puberty are also extremely rare. And none of them have ever reached world class in athletics, while there are known cases of world class athletes with CAIS. But somehow they have to be categorically excluded from athletics because of the prevailing anti-trans ideology.

You mean the prevailing protect-the-female-category-from-males-with-gender-dysphoria ideology.

Read the comments on this IG post. There are many women who disagree with this message board's official ideology.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GxR3LaiWQA4os7K?format=png&name=900x900

I guess the link is not working. This new policy has transitional provision for DSD athletes who are eligible under the 2023 policy. They are allowed to compete as long as they keep their t-level below 2.5 nmol/L and fully cooperate with WA.

Fortunately a DSD with testosterone below 2.5 isn't competitive at a world class level, so DSD runners won't effect global medals like they did in the past.

World Athletics has determined that Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.

Women operate on emotion, hence the virtue signaling.

There’s no reason for 99.9% of competitors to have an unnecessary medical evaluation.

Any athlete that would fail this test would also have unusually high T levels that would show up in drug testing, so even if a Federation was trying to hide the result, the truth would come out like it does today.

Any athlete who fails this test but has a condition like CAIS where there is no physical advantage compared to an XX woman has the ability to go through a complicated medical appeal.

An 'expert' trying to defend his professional reputation is all that is. I will grant him that maybe the tests should only be done by female lab technicians:

There are several posts where a much higher level of expertise is presented, they have essentially been universally down voted (except my currently singular up vote).

This a sign that a simplistic opinion drives responses. This response is at least one with content, but "female lab tech" is actually a ridiculous response on several levels. Of course it will not be part of rules, so it is vacuous. But that statement was an easily understood example of the problems, it was not the basis of the expert opinion. I would like to see a response from the poster identifying themselves as a genetics professor.

Also note that statistics on the rareness of a condition in the overall population are likely misleading at best. It is statistics on the relevant population that matters. Since we are focused on an extremely small and extremely unusual set of people any claim based on "extremely small" lacks appropriate basis unless connected to the right group. As an example, the ability to run 1500m under 4:10 is a much smaller percentage even with "males".

There are some other issues that I will put in a following post because they are relevant in different ways.

I'm interested in why the IAAF is doing this. For instance, it took a long time and with only partial success to address the issues in the Symena (?spelling) case, and the application is not very broad. This might be a way to get an approach that withstands legal challenges at CAS and other legal forums. Ones where individual cases that don't fit can be addressed one by one. However, I have concerns about the seemingly suddeness of a hard rule that doesn't have enough nuance in the real world. And even the burden of proof is thrust on the other party, and an adjustment made after it's too late and reputational damage has been done.

I would not be surprised to see a blanket legal challenge pausing implementation arises before the World's.

In a similar line of thought, I think that the IAAF is well ahead of most sports in getting these issues addressed and mostly resolved and that might be a good reason to do this. So to be clear, I have questions but think that a slightly adjusted version of this is good policy.

I would also like to see why this is better policy than the current rules (legal issues hinted above) may well be the driving concern. I'm interested in a discussion of the issues, not some opinion that the world follows your opinion, there is no content that is relevant to discussion of an important, if special case of sport.

The special Olympics is for special people with specific disorders. That’s the place for anyone who is not XX or XY.