JT20k wrote:
Can't we have IAAF type testing? don't they test for Testosterone levels? Above, youi're male. No debate.
Why can't we just use science. Take out the "I identify as.."
World Athletics is reinstituting DNA sex screening that will check for the SRY gene in a sample of cells/saliva taken from inside the mouth with a cotton swab.
The SRY gene, also known as the testis determining actor, is almost always on the Y chromosome, and thus it's almost always found in males and only in males. In 99.99% of cases, the presence of the SRY gene is a surefire sign that a human is male and the absence of the SRY is a surefire sign that a human is female.
Nowdays, the sex of human fetuses can be determined with an extremely high degree of accuracy and reliablity starting at 9 weeks of pregnancy through the NIPT. The NIPT checks a sample of a pregnant woman's blood for the SRY gene and other genetic material belonging to the fetus, including the number and type of sex chromosomes (XY, XX, X0, XXY, XXX, etc). All the NIPT requires is a standard-sized vial of blood taken from a vein in the usual way blood is drawn for most blood tests.
DNA sex testing of fetuses can be and is commonly done through other more invasive means too. Amniocentesis has been in use for more than than 50 years, and CVS for more than 35 years. But the benefit of the NIPT is that it's not at all invasive, which makes it risk-free and much less expensive.
Since 2020, the NIPT has been part of the routine prenatal care regimen recommended and offered to all pregnant women in the USA who see HCPs. Most private and public insurers in the US cover the costs of the NIPT; in some states, there isn't even a co-pay.
More than 2 million women in the USA now get the NIPT each year. From the figures I've seen, more than 60% of babies born in the USA in recent years had their DNA tested in utero through the NIPT.
Whilst it's possible for a pregnant woman to opt out of the part of the NIPT that screens for the SRY gene and ascertains the fetus's sex chromosomes, most women who get the NIPT don't opt out. Even if a pregnant woman asks not to be told the sex of the fetus, the info is gathered and recorded in her medical records, and after the baby is born this info will be entered into in the child's own medical records.
By the end of the decade, probably more than 9 out of 10 babies born in the US will have had their DNA tested through the NIPT more than 6 months or so before birth.
So in the forseeable future, it will become technically possible to base sex classification for school and youth sports in the USA on participants' sex chromomes and SRY gene status without doing any additional testing in the vast majority of cases. All that would be required is a verified copy of the results of the NIPT each athlete's mother had months before their birth.
But whether this will be politically feasible is another story entirely. People who believe in gender identity ideology think that how a person claims to "identify" should take precedence over his/her sex and the gender identity lobby is still very powerful in the USA.
People who believe in gender identity ideology are also very averse to the kind of DNA sex testing that's routine and commonplace today. The very idea seems to shock and offend them. Any time DNA sex testing is brought up, they claim that DNA sex testing is a human rights violation - which most women's who've been pregnant find risible.
Also, the vast majority of today's genderists seem to be genuinely unaware that in countries like th USA, DNA sex testing of fetuses long before birth is really common nowadays - and genderists who do have a clue seem to be in denial.
