FINA Bans Lia Thomas and Trans Women Who Did not Transition Before Age 12 from Competing Against Women

"May result in temporary ban" isn't convincing. And it's not minors, it will be 22-year-olds at their first elite championship that find out they are XY with an androgen syndrome and have to show FINA their T levels from the past 10 years to demonstrate they didn't experience any part of a male puberty.

The new FINA policy linked to on this thread says on page 6 that ALL swimmers will have to get their sex chromosomes tested and certified by their federations. It's not just for swimmers in women's and girls' events.

I have posted the relevant passage from the policy on the thread twice already.

What's your beef with genetic testing anyways? Sex chromosome and genetic testing is done all the time for a variety of purposes on adults, teenagers, children, infants and human fetuses. Getting a sample of DNA by swabbing the inside of the mouth is simple, non-invasive, painless and takes a few seconds. With today's technology, the testing when done by qualified personnel is nearly 100% accurate, and it's easy to repeat and verify if there's any doubt. Even the genetic testing using DIY at-home sampling and services such as Ancestry dot com are supposedly 99.9% accurate.

Screening of newborns for inherited diseases and conditions has been routinely done in the US since the 1960s. All US states, territories and the DofC require by law that ALL newborns have blood taken from their heel soon after birth so they be screened for a variety of conditions. This screening includes genetic testing for the mutations that can cause/are associated with a variety of conditions such as sickle cell, hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, severe combined immune deficiency, and classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia, a disorder of sex development.

So anyone born in the US since the 1990s/early 2000s has already undergone genetic testing. You can't get a birth certificate for your baby if she or he has not had the mandatory newborn screening required by the jurisdiction in which the child was born.

Again, why the horror over the prospect of genetic testing? Do you express horror over the fact that genetic screening is routinely done of human fetuses during pregnancy? Do you realize that fetal sex chromosome testing has been "a thing" since the 1960s?

Also FFS, stop already with all the ridiculous claims such as "There will be countless women athletes caught in this and will need to seek legal help."

The only way what you are claiming could possible be true is if "countless women athletes" were actually secretly males with undetected or purposely hidden disorders of male sex development. This is something only people who hold very sexist, misogynistic views could possibly believe and are alleging. It's also something that could only be believed by someone who has zero or little experience and understanding child development - and who probably did not grow up as a girl and has not had and raised children of their own.

For the record: mandatory sex chromosome testing was in place for female competitors in international elite sports for nearly 30 years, from 1967 through the summer Olympics in 1996. During that time, "countless women" were not "caught in this" and found they had a "need to seek legal help." In fact, the only athletes competing in women's elite international sports who complained and mounted legal challenges to the sex chromosome (and SRY gene) testing were athletes whom the testing revealed to be XY with disorders of male sex development - conditions that only occur in males.

Moreover, some of the athletes in women's sport who learned through the mandatory genetic testing that they were XY with disorders of male sex development ended up very grateful for the information, because it was crucial to their health and longterm wellbeing and happiness. Some athletes in women's sports in the era of mandatory DNA testing would thank their lucky stars after learning they were XY with a disorder of male sex development. Case in point is 1966 women's World Cup alpine ski champion Erik (previously Erika) Schinegger.

IIRC a recent Olympics was said to have had "several" CAIS individuals competing. I believe Brazil had a volleyball player. (I could be wrong--it was a while back.)

CAIS individuals do tend to have greater height than the female average, which by itself can be an advantage in some sports, but OTOH *complete* AIS people have setbacks in other ways. The problem is differentiating CAIS from PAIS.

Erika Coimbra.

en.wikipedia.org

%C3%89rika_Coimbra

Open link

I haven't got a problem with genetic testing, it's the consequences of it. The binary definition they are applying and the requirements they are placing on athletes will affect more women than trans and intersex participation will.

Let’s be clear what you are proposing is not just unfair (and at every level not just when $$ are involved) it’s discriminatory towards cis women on a protected ground. If the originators of some of the early policy papers on “chosen gender” aka gender identity in sport had actually acknowledged the colliding rights issue and attempted to balance it instead of explicitly announcing they were going to ignore the negative impact on cis women then we’d all be farther along in the conversation. Now when we raise concerns we get lectured to shut up and try harder. In my books that’s abusive gaslighting given the current state of the scientific research (especially at the non elite level).

This is great news. I’m sure that open category will be a joke.

Francine Niyonsaba

He was being overtly silly. You're being covertly silly.

LOL. Hope you don't pull a muscle or throw your back out with all the reaching you're doing.

How on earth in this day and age could athletes competing in elite women's swimming possibly reach age 22 without any of them ever having had even a basic medical checkup? In case you don't know, inquiries about periods are a standard, mandatory part of basic medical care for girls and women starting in the pre-teen years.

The normal age fo puberty of adolescence to start in female children is 8-13, though some physicians today say the 8 should be lowered to 7. Most girls get their first period at 11-12. At 22, most women have been menstruating for half their lives!

The cockamamie scenario you paint is simply not not believable. No human beings thought to be female could ever make it to 22 and never have a period without anyone taking notice of their remarkable and rare-as-hen's-teeth situation.

Periods are very big deals in the lives of girls. Most women can vividly recall getting our period for the first time, and all the difficulties that came with learning to deal with periods in our tween and early teen years. Girls talk amongst themselves about their periods a lot.

Moreover, menstruation is a key milestone and major measure of female physical health and of fitness for athletics in particular. So long before turning 22, athletes - along with all ordinary girls and women - who've never had a menstrual period would be well aware and extremely worried that something is very wrong - as would their families, friends, coaches, trainers, managers and team medical advisors.

In the US, the general rule of thumb is that if a girl hasn't started periods by 14 or 15, she urgently needs to see a doctor for investigation as to why. Another rule of thumb is that if a girl hasn't started getting periods within 3 years of beginning breast budding, that needs looking into too - and urgently. Both such situations are signs that could mean an XY DSD like CAIS or an XX DSD such as MRKH.

Since most girls start their periods at 11-12, some girls and their parents get concerned if they haven't started by 13 - and lots of girls get positively panicked if they haven't started their periods by the time they turn 14.

Also, by age 22 most females with access to medical care have already seen a gynecologist for a gynecological exam, aka a "full pelvic exam." In the US, the recommendation of medical bodies such as ACOG is that girls have their first gynecological exam between 13 and 17. The CDC recommends women get their first screening for cervical cancer via Pap smear at 21. Planned Parenthood says a full pelvic is standard part of the "basic wellness exam" starting at age 21. But long before 21, many girls and young women get full pelvics in order to get prescription birth control and for investigation of common female health complaints like severe menstrual cramps, irregular menses, unusually heavy bleeding and clotting, ovarian cysts, and unexplained recurrent or chronic pelvic pain separate from menstrual pain.

In case you don't know, in a gynecological exam, a HCP throughly probes and examines the external and internal reproductive organs of female patients. A patient has to disrobe from the waist down, lay flat on her back on an exam table, scooch her butt down to the edge of the table, put her feet in stirrups and spread her legs wide so the HCP can put a speculum inside her vagina. Once the speculum is in, the HCP will reach in with the fingers to palpate all the various organs of the female reproductive tract to make sure they are normal and healthy.

From Planned Parenthood:

During a pelvic exam, a doctor or nurse examines your vulva and your internal reproductive organs — your vagina, cervix, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus.

1. The external exam — Your doctor or nurse will look at your vulva and the opening of your vagina. They’re checking for signs of cysts, abnormal discharge, genital warts, irritation, or other issues.

2. The speculum exam — Your doctor will gently slide a speculum into your vagina. The speculum is made of metal or plastic. It separates the walls of your vagina when it opens. This may feel uncomfortable or weird, but it shouldn’t hurt. Tell your doctor if it does hurt, because they may be able to fix the size or position of the speculum.

If you want to see your cervix, just ask. You may be able to see it with a mirror.

If you’re getting a Pap or HPV test, your doctor will use a tiny spatula or brush to wipe a small sample of cells from your cervix. They will send this sample to a lab to see if there are any problems.

3. The bimanual exam — During this part of the exam, your doctor or nurse will put 1 or 2 gloved and lubricated fingers into your vagina while gently pressing on your lower abdomen with their other hand. This is a way to check for:
the size, shape, and position of your uterus
tenderness or pain — which might mean infection or another condition
enlarged ovaries, fallopian tubes, ovarian cysts, or tumors

4. The rectovaginal exam — Your doctor or nurse may also put a gloved finger into your rectum. This checks the muscles between your vagina and your anus. This also checks for tumors behind your uterus, on the lower wall of your vagina, or in your rectum. Some doctors put another finger in your vagina while they do this. This lets them examine the tissue in between more thoroughly.

Finally, ace competitive swimmers don't materialize out of the blue and suddenly start showing up for their first-ever elite championships events at age 22 the way your preposterous imaginary scenario makes it seem. Elite swimmers come up through the junior ranks, like athletes do in a majority of other sports. Most elite swimmers start competing as little kids. I think Lia Thomas said in an interview that Thomas started swimming competitively when Thomas was 5 or 6. Lots of swim orgs that have kids programs start races for kids in the "under 6" division.

Finally.....Someone with common sense and courage is standing up to the woke progressives...

Are you going to do the transforming at home to save some money? All you really need is some garden shears and a one inch hole saw for your drill.

Agree. I'm so sick of being told that girls and women should accept an unfair situation because it will hurt somebody's feelings or mental health. Fairness matters in youth sports and every level of competition.

You say that the sort of requirement that FINA has imposed - which is for ALL athletes of both sexes to undergo testing to confirm their genetic/chromosomal sex - "will affect more women" in negative ways than continuing to make female athletes compete against athletes with testes who've obtained all the physical advantages that come from going through male puberty like Lia Thomas, CeCe Telfer, June Eastwood, Terry Miller, Andraya Yearwood, Meghan Youngren, Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui.

Please explain exactly how. What exactly are "the consequences of it" you find so troubling?

The kind of quick mouth swab used to obtain DNA for genetic sex testing is less invasive than a COVID test. It's painless and takes a couple of seconds. How can making athletes go through that kind of testing possibly be problem and a violation of their rights, dignity and personhood when all elite athletes - and many non-elite athletes too - are already subject to various other kinds of medical exams - standard physicals, hernia checks, weigh-ins, as well as urine and blood testing for PEDS?

The contention that women and girls will be more harmed by a cheek swab test that reveals their genetic/chromosomal sex than by being forced to compete in sports against a host of male athletes with the massive physical advantages that come from going through male puberty - be they athletes with disorders of male sex development or normally-developed males who now claim opposite-sex gender identities - is ridiculous. Anyone who believes this is either off his rocker or just plain talking nonsense to advance the misogynistic aim of sanctioning male invasion and male domination of female sports - and promoting the corollary aim of forcing women and girls to share locker rooms, changing rooms, showers, toilets, sleeping quarters and such with males as well.

"The binary definition they are applying?" What can you possibly mean by this? Sex is binary. If they want to implement science-based rules, they have to recognize the binary nature of sex.

International Rugby League (IRL) today announced that for the time being it was prohibiting male trans athletes from participating in women's rugby, including this year's Women's World Cup. IRL says it plans to carry out more research before finalizing its rules.

news.sky.com

Rugby league bans transgender women from international competition

In a statement, the International Rugby League (IRL) says it plans to carry out more research before finalising its rules and will use this year's World Cup to help develop a "transwomen inclusion policy" for the future.

Open link

World Rugby already conducted a thorough review of the inclusion issue several years ago. The review process, headed by Ross Tucker, concluded that males who identify as

transgender women may not currently play women's ruby

Because of the size, force- and power-producing advantages conferred by testosterone during puberty and adolescence, and the resultant player welfare risks this creates.

Given that the typical male vs female advantage in the above-described biological variables and hence performance outcomes ranges from 30% to 100%, a substantial and meaningful advantage is retained even after testosterone suppression. This has implications for performance, given the premium on contact and collisions, speed, force­ production and power in rugby.

A detailed explanation of the biological rationale, along with explanations of the effects of testosterone and its potential influence on safety and performance factors can be read in the guidelines for transgender women here.

world.rugby

Transgender Guidelines | World Rugby

worldrugby.org

World Rugby guidelines on transgender.

Open link

world.rugby

Transgender Guidelines | World Rugby

worldrugby.org

World Rugby guidelines on transgender.

Open link

The last time that mandatory genetic sex testing was done of athletes seeking eligibility for elite women's competition was at the 1996 summer Olympics in Atlanta. A total of 3,387 athletes seeking eligibility in women's competition in sports such as aquatics, track & field and gymnastics were tested.

The testing done in 1996 looked for the SRY gene, the male-determining gene that is usually on the Y chromosome but every once in a blue moon somehow ends up on an X chromosome in someone who has only X chromosomes.

Out of the of 3,387 athletes tested at the 1996 summer Games, 8 (1 in 423) tested positive for the SRY gene and were found to have disorders of sex development affecting males. 3 had CAIS and 4 and PAIS, conditions that can only affect persons with male genetics, male gonads (testes), male androgen receptors, and no female internal reproductive organs.

One of the 8 athletes found to be SRY-positive had 5-ARD, the condition that Semenya has. 5-ARD is an enzyme deficiency that occurs as often in females as it does in males, but it only affects the sex development of males. Thus it's a male-only DSD just like the various forms of AIS are.

Significantly, however, 6 out of the 8 athletes - including the one with XY 5-ARD - seeking to compete in women's events at the 1996 summer Olympics who were found to be SRY positive had already had their testes surgically removed, some prior to puberty. Only two of the DSD athletes still had their testes.

This is a very different situation to today and over the past 15 or so years when Semenya first began making waves in girls' and women's elite track. In the Semenya era, all the athletes with disorders of male sex development who've turned out for women's track & field in large numbers and whose participation has been contested still have their testes intact. All have male levels of natural testosterone and all have the physical ability to respond to and utilize the testosterone that their testes make in massive amounts in the ways that males typically do. All have been through male puberty of adolescence and in the process obtained the usual physical benefits from it that give adolescent and adult males such a huge leg up over females in sports.

The fact that 6 out of the 8 athletes found to be be SRY+ at the 1996 summer Game had undergone surgical removal of their testes means that prior to being genetically tested by the IOC, 6 out of the 8 had already had their DSD conditions medically diagnosed.

All 8 athletes who tested positive for the SRY gene at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics were given sex verification certificates in the same batch as their teammates to maintain anonymity. None appears to have been declared ineligible for women's competition at the '96 Games.

However, the 8 SRY+ DSD athletes each had a medical consult and exam in which their conditions were explained to them and they were given recommendations for follow-up care. Olympic medical advisors wrote letters to the athletes' team physicians explaining the results of the sex testing and, where necessary, recommending further medical evaluation after the Games.

So out of a total of 3,387 athletes seeking eligibility for women's events at the 1996 summer Olympics, nearly all - 3379 or 99.76% - were found to have normal female sex genetics as expected.

Of the 8 who were found to have the male-specific SRY gene, 6 already had their DSDs medically diagnosed and their testes removed, which means if they didn't personally know of their medical conditions already, their parents surely did. Only 2 of the athletes had testes, and they are the ones who possibly could reached the Olympics without having their DSDs medically diagnosed already.

Pray tell, how did the genetic testing done at the 1996 summer Olympics adversely impact the athletes who underwent it? How did the testing process and information yielded by the testing harm the 8 athletes who were found to be SRY+ with disorders of male sex development?

More to the point, how did the testing harm the the 99.76% of the athletes in women's elite competition who were found to be SRY gene negative as expected?

You say "the consequences" of genetic sex testing for women will be so dire and negative that they will be far worse than forcing female athletes to compete with an untold number of male athletes with disorders of male sex development like Caster Semenya and male athletes who claim opposite-sex gender identities like Lia Thomas. Please explain exactly how. Coz I am totally mystified by the claims you keep making. I don't think any of them can be true.

Ahhhh!!!

Common sense prevails. Seems like a perfect compromise for all.