The point is to weed out athletes in the female division that are not actually female, not females who are competitively superior (which Semenya is not, since he is genetically a male) They can do this easily, and non-invasively through SRY-gene testing so your take is invalid.
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.
It could be either. But I don't care because I'm not i'm into leather. When I go to the Y I'm more into the freshly shaven, moist and pink parts that resembles a taco but the inviting aroma reminds me of the ocean.
“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.”
Can someone explain what Coe is referring to when he says Olympic champions don't run against 14-year-olds in community sports? I'm sure there are 14-yr-olds at parkruns all the time, and that no Olympic runner would be ineligible for such a race.
Secondly, Coe is simply quite wrong factually about testosterone being "the key determinant" in performance. If one measures testosterone levels in a variety of athletes, it is by no means assured that those with higher levels are more successful. A good primer on the subject:
Lastly, the underhanded remark at second-rate sociologists is completely uncalled for. He can shove sand.
On your first point about 14-year-olds I suspect you are bring deliberately obtuse. Competition is regularly divided into age categories - like sex categories. That is his point.
Secondly, the feature you have chosen to misinterpret about testosterone is not that there will be varying levels amongst males and that these will not of themselves determine the level of any given performance but that there is a distinct difference between male and female levels that substantially contribute to the differences between male and female performances.
You appear to have confirmed his observation about sociologists.
Sorry, but the person who feeds the animals and cleans their cages in a Humane Society location has done more good than any sociologist has or ever will.
Can someone explain what Coe is referring to when he says Olympic champions don't run against 14-year-olds in community sports? I'm sure there are 14-yr-olds at parkruns all the time, and that no Olympic runner would be ineligible for such a race.
He’s just throwing that in to make the simplistic point that some things are based on biology and universally agreed upon as fair. But gender, and even biological sex, just isn’t as black and white as age. As for “categories”, there are other exclusionary eligibility categories based on region or others (like Asian or Commonwealth games) that also, in part, exist for fairness reasons.
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.
Lastly, the underhanded remark at second-rate sociologists is completely uncalled for.
Agree, it looks bad on someone in his position and is likely to weaken his argument. I don’t find myself agreeing with many arguments coming from sociologists, but would never diss them as a group, especially on record.
To be fair, he dissed second rate sociologists, not all sociologists.
This is some strangely tough talk given Coe doesn't have any kind of rigorous basis to back up his argument. But then again, the IAAF has only ever dealt in what seems "about right" rather than any providing any quantitative rationale for instituting rules. Stack height restrictions, false start regulations, and soon to be testosterone/chromosomal restrictions have all been chosen arbitrarily, among others. The IAAF likes to act smart and cite specific numbers in the rule book, but too often there isn't anything substantive behind them.
Lastly, the underhanded remark at second-rate sociologists is completely uncalled for.
Agree, it looks bad on someone in his position and is likely to weaken his argument. I don’t find myself agreeing with many arguments coming from sociologists, but would never diss them as a group, especially on record.
Perhaps, but after years of presenting reason and getting nothing but nonsense from said Sociologists, I understand. The pendulum will swing disproportionately back on those who continue to marginalize the Womens Category in name of some twisted logic that says we all must suffer to appease those with self identity issues.
Agree, it looks bad on someone in his position and is likely to weaken his argument. I don’t find myself agreeing with many arguments coming from sociologists, but would never diss them as a group, especially on record.
To be fair, he dissed second rate sociologists, not all sociologists.
It’s just not politically savvy. Just like you can’t say “stingy Jews”, “lazy Mexicans”, “criminal black people” and claim to be only talking about a subset of them.
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.
Castor Semenya has a disorder of sexual development that occurs ONLY in male individuals. Semenya is male, and has internal testes. For the purpose of sport he is definitely male, and so were his buddies that shared the podium with him in Rio.
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 won't argue with anything you wrote. I'll offer this clarification: I wasn't conflating, I was using CAIS as an example of why SRY testing (as the poster I was responding to suggested) can't and won't be the only way to figure this out. It is not that simple.
And I totally agree, probably no one would argue women with CAIS participating in women's sports. The issue lies with the PAIS women, and it is an issue that we definitely need to solve sooner rather than later.
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.
There are different kinds of DSD and you have effectively reduced them to one type. That isn't correct.
How is it with these individuals with androgen insensitivity that "every single thing about them fits into the bimodal classification of female" when they have no ovaries and no uterus? Are these features not fundamental to being female? What are the other characteristics that make them "female"? The only indication you allude to is their androgen insensitivity, which suppresses the masculine characteristics that generally occur with the onset of puberty. That does not make them female; it simply explains why they identify as such, because their sex was not correctly ascertained at birth.
But how they identity is not the issue here. With such individuals their androgen insensitivity means they have no biological advantages in sports over women. But DSD individuals like Semenya do - because they have male levels of testosterone and are not androgen insensitive by virtue of functioning testes. She is not of the same category that you refer to above. Such individuals are in every biological respect male (we know that she has fathered a child), however that they identify as female. It is that they are biologically male, with all the advantages that that confers, which is the issue for women's sport.
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.
No. Semenya does not have PAIS. She has 5-ARD. Both are covered by the current DSD regulations, but they are different conditions.
In Chand v. IAAF, expert witnesses representing Chand made an argument that she did not have the same advantage as other XY athletes because of her PAIS. Both CAS and IAAF accepted that argument.
In Semenya v. IAAF, Semenya's expert witness tried to make the same argument, and IAAF completely disagreed. Semenya's DSD affected her genitalia, but not her athletic ability. She is not as fast as Rudisha simply because she isn't as exceptional as Rudisha. There are many men with 1:54 800m PB. They are serious athletes, they just aren't as talented as Rudisha.
CAS did not make judgement on this point in Semenya case, and simply said it was irrelevant. Whether Semenya had the same advantage as other XY athletes or not, her advantage is still large enough to cause competitive unfairness.
