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.
I don't see the problem here. Someone like Sara would (or at least should) find out at some point in their life that they have a condition like Swyer Syndrome. Maybe not as a 17 year old, but at least by the time they wanted to start a family and/or wondered why they'd never gotten a period even though they were, e.g., a 27 year old ex-athlete. In other words, someone is going to eventually break the news to them. Might as well be WA. And probably best that it happens sooner rather than later.
Sara will not qualify to compete in the women’s section. She won’t be able to bear children, and she will have a multitude of heath issues related to her condition. Life is not always kind. That’s just reality.
Elite athletes have to pee in front of doping control agents, having their check swabbed once during their entire career is far less invasive than what they already have to do on a regular basis.
If someone does not want to have to pee in front of doping control agents multiple times a year and have their cheek swabbed once, they shouldn’t strive to become an elite athlete. No one is forcing anyone to become an elite athlete. It’s a choice. If someone doesn’t agree with the rules and regulations, they should find an activity that agrees with their views on privacy.
If someone wants to become an elite athlete, they need to accept that they will be drug tested and have their sex confirmed if they want to come in the women’s section. These are the rules and regulations for this sport.
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.
This is quite a dubious assumption. Back in the 20th century, DSD health care was much more secretive than it is today. (Not that it is very transparent today. But it used to be much worse.)
Most people with CAIS were not told why they were having surgery. Kimberly Zieselman saw a reproductive oncologist at age 15 because she never had a period. She was told she needed a surgery to remove her underdeveloped uterus and ovaries because they were cancerous. It wasn't until 25 years later (after getting married and adopted twin daughters) she finally learned the truth about her body. Her parents were also told the same lie by the doctor. Her story is not unique. Many people of her generation had similar experiences.
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.
You are saying someone like this Sydney belongs in men's sports. That's cruel.
Most Americans are too ignorant to know what they want on this.
They have never been exposure to unisex restroom setups, which are the norm in much of Europe and more and more buildings in the North America because they are a much better use of space.
One big room with 10 highly private stalls and a couple of sinks, vs two rooms each with five stalls offering no privacy at all? I'll take the modern one.
If someone wants to become an elite athlete, they need to accept that they will be drug tested and have their sex confirmed if they want to come in the women’s section. These are the rules and regulations for this sport.
Actually, they don't, until there is such a rule on the books.
Sara will not qualify to compete in the women’s section. She won’t be able to bear children, and she will have a multitude of heath issues related to her condition. Life is not always kind. That’s just reality.
Whilst I agree that life isn't always fair or kind, and that Sara Forsberg will have a multitude of health issues related to her DSD, I feel it's important to point out that the claims you've made about Forsberg's eligibility for women's competition and ability to bear children are not true.
Athletes with Swyer syndrome - XY gonadal dysgenesis - like Forsberg would be allowed to compete in the female category under WA's forthcoming new rules.
The aim of WA's new protocols to ring-fence the female category through use of DNA sex screening is to weed out genetically male DSD athletes who have clear and significant "male advantage" like Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui. The intent is solely to deny eligibility to DSD athletes who've obtained the athletics advantages that come from going through male development in utero and during mini-puberty of infancy and puberty of adolescence because
1) prior to birth they grew testes or a single testis which produce, or previously produced, the high levels of natural endogenous testosterone only found in males;
AND
2) they have enough male androgen receptors in good working order for their cells, tissues, organs, systems and bodies overall to be able to utilize the large amounts of testosterone their testes produce, or previously produced, in the ways that male human beings typically do.
Swyer syndrome prevents proper gonadal development from happening in the first place, so people like Sara Forsberg never grew testes or a testis - and they'll never will grow them.
People with Swyer are born with completely nonfunctional bits of un/underdeveloped tissue known as "streak gonads." As individuals with Swyer grow up, their streak gonads never progress in development any further, not even when they undergo hormone treatments. If/when changes occur to the streak gonads of people with Swyer, it's usually because they're becoming cancerous or pre-cancerous, something that happens in about 30% of cases.
Also, whilst I have no idea whether Sara Forsberg will be able to bear children or not, individuals with Swyer syndrome can get pregnant and give birth with medical assistance and use of the latest advanced reproductive technology/techniques or ART.
Specifically, Swyer syndrome patients can get pregnant through IVF using donor eggs and following administration of different exogenous hormones beforehand to further develop, expand and prime the uterus. Once implantation occurs, a host of exogenous hormones will have to be constantly administered, and the patient will need close and frequent monitoring, throughout the pregnancy. Still, a successful pregnancy resulting in the birth of a healthy child is indeed possible.
According to a paper published on March 18 of this year,
Between 1989 and 2022, a total of 41 pregnancies resulting in deliveries were documented in this population, resulting in 40 live births and one stillbirth. Additionally, two reports described three ongoing pregnancies without reported outcomes
Patients with 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis who achieve pregnancy through OD [egg donation] face an elevated risk of obstetric complications, such as preeclampsia and pregnancy-induced hypertension. These risks arise from hormonal and structural characteristics of the uterus in this condition, which may impair trophoblast invasion. Hormonal imbalances or inadequate endometrial preparation for pregnancy could contribute to this impairment, increasing the risk of placental pathologies [14]. Additionally, the use of oocyte donation and assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is associated with a higher incidence of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and an increased rate of caesarean section [15].
Caesarean section is the predominant mode of delivery in patients with Swyer syndrome
The primary indications for caesarean section in patients with Swyer syndrome can be categorized into four groups. The first includes pregnancy complications such as preeclampsia, multiple gestation, and foetal malpresentation. The second involves failed induction of labor, potentially linked to anatomical differences and altered receptor characteristics in Swyer patients. The third is an androgynous pelvic shape, which may impact the feasibility of vaginal delivery. Lastly, elective caesarean section is performed due to maternal health concerns or upon maternal request/
To date, six successful vaginal deliveries have been reported, although one case resulted in stillbirth at 34 weeks
Conclusion: Assisted reproductive technologies, particularly in vitro fertilisation (IVF) using oocyte donation, provide a feasible option for individuals diagnosed with Swyer syndrome to achieve parenthood.
Purpose To highlight the successful use of assisted reproductive technologies in achieving pregnancy and healthy childbirth in a woman with Swyer syndrome, a rare disorder of sex development characterized by gonadal dysgenesi...
Not all people with a hearing impairment qualify for the special Olympics, same with intellectual impairments, visual impairments, etc. Not everyone with a perfect SAT score gets into Harvard.
If someone does not have XX chromosomes, don’t expect to qualify for the women’s section.
You can play the devils advocate on every scenario in life, but can’t use that perspective to govern the many.
There are many activities and recreational sports that people with can choose from.
Fight for a DSD section rather than ruin sport for all women.
If someone does not want to have to pee in front of doping control agents multiple times a year and have their cheek swabbed once, they shouldn’t strive to become an elite athlete. No one is forcing anyone to become an elite athlete. It’s a choice. If someone doesn’t agree with the rules and regulations, they should find an activity that agrees with their views on privacy.
If someone wants to become an elite athlete, they need to accept that they will be drug tested and have their sex confirmed if they want to come in the women’s section. These are the rules and regulations for this sport.
Very reasonable statement. Am I on the right website?
Pant makers only make pants for people with two legs.
Runragged says, “That’s not fair because some people have a genetic disorder and have three legs.”
This is RunRagged logic on all issues.
Huh? Of all the posters on LRC, I am one of the staunchest, most unwavering and loudest advocates of excluding males from the female category - and I've always supported bringing back DNA sex testing of athletes in order to do that. As other posters will attest, I'm pretty much a broken record on the topic.
I've never said that the kind of DNA sex screening WA is going to be instituting is unfair. I think it's very fair, in fact. I'm thrilled DNA sex screening is being brought back so that the female category will be more tightly ring-fenced than it's been for the past 30 years.
It's just that on this thread - and others - I've made a point of trying to be honest, accurate and crystal clear about exactly what the screening will look for, how it will work, and who it will exclude.
Not all people with a hearing impairment qualify for the special Olympics, same with intellectual impairments, visual impairments, etc. Not everyone with a perfect SAT score gets into Harvard.
If someone does not have XX chromosomes, don’t expect to qualify for the women’s section.
You can play the devils advocate on every scenario in life, but can’t use that perspective to govern the many.
There are many activities and recreational sports that people with can choose from.
Fight for a DSD section rather than ruin sport for all women.
Please explain exactly how acknowledging the scientific fact that some female human beings have X0 chromosomes, some have XXX chromsosomes, and some have X0 chromsomes with mosaicism will "ruin sport for all women." Coz I don't get it.
Women's sports are for everyone who is female, whether our sex chromosomes are XX, X0, XXX or another atypical pattern found in females.
There's no need for sports to have a separate DSD section for anyone genuinely female with a DSD. The DSD conditions that occur in females - such as classic Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, Turner syndrome and MRKH - do not give girls and women with those conditions an unfair advantage over other members of their sex.
This post was edited 24 seconds after it was posted.
