Medals what about prize money? Bishop literally lost out on 1 million + on her Olympic cycle in endorsements it was a total joke how this situation was bungled.
I thought it was a GREAT race, and ideal, since the top three competing against each other shared a similar condition and background. If it had been just Semenya, it would have been much less interesting. DSD athletes have every right to compete in sport and, fair or not, face physical, social, and psychological pressures that are difficult to overcome. Imagine what it means to intersex people around the world to see one of their own on the podium. We can quibble and adjust the rules after the fact, but that 2016 race forced us all to learn about these types of individuals and grapple with the true meaning of gender and biological sex.
So Bishop, Sharpe and the other woman who escapes my memory have to be canaries in this coal mine of PC crap?
If I was Bishop or Sharpe I would have sued the IAAF, the IOC for my medal.
OK, I stand corrected on the simplicity factor. No problem. I accept that I'm behind the times understanding this issue. As an update, let's say this: no matter what, if you have a Y chromosome, AND/OR you have any other genetic markers that are typically found to produce male traits (such as the development of testes rather than ovaries) then you must run in the Y category.
The crappy part of this would be that women would have to be willing to undergo an invasive medical examination. But at least we could verify that they are women and not benefitted by an unusual/non-typical mutation that results in testes or other male characteristics. As I said before. otherwise there is nothing compelling about the Women's side of the sport. It would end up being just another category. I'd rather the Men's category be the lumped -in category rather than the women's.
What's so invasive about a medical examination that consists of inserting a Q-tip inside the mouth and swabbing the inside of the cheeks for saliva and cells? It takes a few seconds, is painless, doesn't involve disrobing. A buccal swab for DNA testing is less invasive than a Covid test, and FAR less invasive than the testing for PEDs that all elite athletes undergo.
The claim that getting your cheeks swabbed for DNA testing is "crappy" coz "too invasive" is risible to most women. Because the basic medical care women and girls customarily get is extremely invasive. The standard medical exams known as pelvic exams or full pelvics that teenage girls and women get as a matter of course whenever we visit a gynecologist are far more invasive than a cheek swab - yet women and girls get these exams all the time, without objecting that they violate our privacy and dignity. 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.
In general here’s what happens at a pelvic exam.
First, they’ll give you a few minutes of privacy to undress and put on a paper or cloth gown. Then they’ll come back in and ask you to lie down on the exam table and put your legs up on footrests or knee-rests.
Slide your hips down to the edge of the table. Let your knees spread out wide. Don’t worry — your doctor will talk you through all this. Try to relax your butt, stomach and vaginal muscles as much as possible. This will make you more comfortable.
There are usually 3 or 4 parts to a pelvic exam: 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.
If you’re getting a test for STDs (like chlamydia or gonorrhea) or other infections, your doctor will use a cotton swab to take a sample of the discharge from your cervix and send it to a lab for testing.
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.
You may feel like you need to poop during this part of the exam. Don’t worry, you won’t. This is totally normal and only lasts a few seconds.
Compared to a routine female pelvic exam, buccal swab DNA testing is a breeze - no big deal. When such testing was done to establish eligibility for women's sports competition in the past, female athletes never had a problem with it. The only athletes who found buccal swab genetic sex testing to be "too invasive," an affront to their dignity and privacy, and a violation of their human rights were some of the athletes found to be XY with DSDs.
The fact that the only athletes in women's sports who objected to the cheek-swab testing were XY DSD ones just goes to show that such athletes did not go through life being treated as women/girls. Because if they had truly spent their lives "living as girls/women" they all would have known that basic, standard medical care for women and teenage girls means going to a gynecologist for a pelvic. If they had female biology, pelvic exams would be part of the routine care they received as elite athletes competing in women's sports.
No wonder Larry Nasser got away with his crap for years. If did this exam to young women who never had this done on them before they couldn't tell the difference between the exam and sexually violating them.
The key is not just the current testosterone level, but the cumulative effects of testosterone since puberty. Once a person goes through male puberty, the effects cannot be entirely reversed by any medical intervention currently available.
That's why the new FINA rules requires that a trans person starts hormon suppression before the onset of puberty (Tanner stage 2) to be eligible in the women's division.
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, but I don’t think WA will actually go FINA’s way or be able to sustain that position (notwithstanding Coe’s chirps). They can impose eligibility requirements on current testosterone or other determinative and changeable current attributes, but to say that something in the past permanently denies one an opportunity to participate in women’s sport would be fundamentally at odds with embracing without question a trans woman’s gender identity as a woman, a position reflected in WA’s rule books for quite some time now and very unlikely to go backward.
Such a move would also induce a collateral cost of pressuring pre-puberty trans kids with promise of sporting talent to rush to make the decision of hormone suppression when they and their parents might just not be ready to make that decision or permanently forgo the promise of a sporting career.
Well, the goal of "inclusion" is presumably pursued by creating a third category. And it is not "denying the trans women's identity." There are legally disabled people who cannot participate in any para category, because their have too much advantage over para athletes. That does not deny their legal status as disabled persons.
FIBA allows only one naturalized player (those who became naturalized after 16) per country. This does not deny the citizenship status of naturalized players. It is done solely for the purpose of maintaining the competitive balance. (Otherwise, many teams would have multiple naturalized Americans.)
Trans women who swim in the third category will be recognized as women. They are women who are not eligible to swim in the women's category just like a naturalized Hungarian who is not eligible to play on the Hungarian national basketball team.
As for your "collateral damage", most kids who start taking puberty blockers start that immediately before the onset of stage 2 puberty, which is usually around age 10 to 11. They are usually on counseling for a few years before that. They don't "rush' to make their decisions. And this is mostly reversible until they start taking cross hormone, which does not start until much later.
Well, the goal of "inclusion" is presumably pursued by creating a third category
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about creating a category for DSD athletes & Trans athletes at the Special Olympics & other competitions for the differently abled. I think this is tremendously ableist thinking with people perceiving that proposal as not allowing these athletes to compete at the "real" Olympics etc.
Well here's the thing, the distribution of testosterone levels of men vs women is bimodal and does not overlap. Meaning that even women whose testosterone is at the high end of the female range will still be lower than men at the low end of male range, in terms of testosterone levels. The only exceptions that have been found, are women with polycystic ovary syndrome, whose testosterone exceeds the lower bounds of male testosterone levels.
While I don't agree with making the male/female divisions based on testosterone levels alone, this is why testosterone is brought up as a talking point.
Sorry, it's just not true that women with PCOS have testosterone that "exceeds the lower bounds of male testosterone levels."
The majority of women with PCOS have T levels between 2 and 4 nmol/L. But PCOS outliers who have T levels higher than that still do not have T levels in the male range. PCOS women with the highest levels of T for the condition almost always have T under 5 nmol/L. But women with PCOS who test that high still are customarily evaluated for an endocrine tumor or additional endocrine condition like Cushing's.
The range of testosterone levels in females with PCOS extends beyond that of the normal female range,but not into the normal male range
serum testosterone levels in patients with PCOS seldom exceed 4.8 nmol/l. If testosterone levels are greater than 4.8 nmol/l then further endocrinological investigation to exclude other causes of androgen hypersecretion (e.g. Cushing's syndrome, adrenal gland or ovarian tumours) (3).
Most testosterone values in PCOS will be ≤150 ng/dL (≤5.2 nmol/L). Testosterone values of ≥200 ng/dL (≥6.9 nmol/L) warrant consideration of an ovarian or adrenal tumor.
Like you said at the start, "the distribution of testosterone levels of men vs women is bimodal and does not overlap." Women with PCOS are not an exception.
Sorry to be so picky about this point, but women with PCOS have a hard enough time as it is. Their health condition is a really serious one with myriad negative impacts. To add insult to injury, they are frequently described as being like men... So I feel compelled to set the record straight.
Also, lately I've seen and heard a lot of gender identity ideologues who promote inclusion of males in female sports backing up their position by claiming that women with PCOS have T levels in the male range. This, they say, justifies allowing males with male levels of T to compete in women's sports. Some say "cis black women" commonly have T levels in the male range too. Neither is true.
You're right, I misread the lower bound of the male testosterone range was and thought that women with PCOS dipped into that range. Thanks for clarifying.
Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puber...
I don’t disagree with anything you are saying, but I don’t think WA will actually go FINA’s way or be able to sustain that position (notwithstanding Coe’s chirps). They can impose eligibility requirements on current testosterone or other determinative and changeable current attributes, but to say that something in the past permanently denies one an opportunity to participate in women’s sport would be fundamentally at odds with embracing without question a trans woman’s gender identity as a woman, a position reflected in WA’s rule books for quite some time now and very unlikely to go backward.
Such a move would also induce a collateral cost of pressuring pre-puberty trans kids with promise of sporting talent to rush to make the decision of hormone suppression when they and their parents might just not be ready to make that decision or permanently forgo the promise of a sporting career.
Well, the goal of "inclusion" is presumably pursued by creating a third category. And it is not "denying the trans women's identity." There are legally disabled people who cannot participate in any para category, because their have too much advantage over para athletes. That does not deny their legal status as disabled persons.
FIBA allows only one naturalized player (those who became naturalized after 16) per country. This does not deny the citizenship status of naturalized players. It is done solely for the purpose of maintaining the competitive balance. (Otherwise, many teams would have multiple naturalized Americans.)
Trans women who swim in the third category will be recognized as women. They are women who are not eligible to swim in the women's category just like a naturalized Hungarian who is not eligible to play on the Hungarian national basketball team.
That is not my point. My point was that WA has already revised its rule books to eliminate anything that sounds like sex verification and simply takes a trans woman’s word for her identity, but has instead shifted its language to prescribe “eligibility requirements” for some women.
A third category is entirely possible in the future. With two categories, it is my opinion that WA would find it difficult to reconcile “yes, you are a woman” with “but you have permanently lost the right to compete as a woman”. I could be wrong of course.
Trans IS an ARTIFICIAL construct. NOT BASED IN REALITY by nature.
I think it’s the opposite. Trans people seem to be a naturally occurring facet of human life. Some percentage of human beings have a mismatch in their brain between the gender they feel they are and their biological sex. Seems to just be our nature.
Sorry, it's just not true that women with PCOS have testosterone that "exceeds the lower bounds of male testosterone levels."
The majority of women with PCOS have T levels between 2 and 4 nmol/L. But PCOS outliers who have T levels higher than that still do not have T levels in the male range. PCOS women with the highest levels of T for the condition almost always have T under 5 nmol/L. But women with PCOS who test that high still are customarily evaluated for an endocrine tumor or additional endocrine condition like Cushing's.
The range of testosterone levels in females with PCOS extends beyond that of the normal female range,but not into the normal male range
serum testosterone levels in patients with PCOS seldom exceed 4.8 nmol/l. If testosterone levels are greater than 4.8 nmol/l then further endocrinological investigation to exclude other causes of androgen hypersecretion (e.g. Cushing's syndrome, adrenal gland or ovarian tumours) (3).
Most testosterone values in PCOS will be ≤150 ng/dL (≤5.2 nmol/L). Testosterone values of ≥200 ng/dL (≥6.9 nmol/L) warrant consideration of an ovarian or adrenal tumor.
Like you said at the start, "the distribution of testosterone levels of men vs women is bimodal and does not overlap." Women with PCOS are not an exception.
Sorry to be so picky about this point, but women with PCOS have a hard enough time as it is. Their health condition is a really serious one with myriad negative impacts. To add insult to injury, they are frequently described as being like men... So I feel compelled to set the record straight.
Also, lately I've seen and heard a lot of gender identity ideologues who promote inclusion of males in female sports backing up their position by claiming that women with PCOS have T levels in the male range. This, they say, justifies allowing males with male levels of T to compete in women's sports. Some say "cis black women" commonly have T levels in the male range too. Neither is true.
There is a problem with this analysis which is too confident about setting the upper limits of testosterone in females with PCOS. All of the available studies which I've seen rely on a limited sample size (hundreds at most); enough to establish a typical range, but not enough to know what the very uppermost values are possible in human biology.
To illustrate what I mean, the number of humans over 7 feet tall is 1 in 2.6 million. Now do a PCOS study on 100 million women and see what the outlying values are. Well, people say, the ratio of 7-footers is so small we don't have to even consider the possibility in our policies, but the problem as I'm sure you realize is that elite sport attracts outliers. There are only 28 people in the United States (out of 330M) that are as tall as Shaq, Wilt Chamberlin, and Kareem Abdul-Jabar. So what did the NBA do about these people, many of whom have medical conditions contributing to their height? They did not exclude them. They changed the rules, such as the 3-second rule and (for a time) outlawed the dunk. And interestingly, the 7-footers, while sometimes dominant, often have downsides such as a lack of agility or the ability to shoot foul shots.
That is not my point. My point was that WA has already revised its rule books to eliminate anything that sounds like sex verification and simply takes a trans woman’s word for her identity, but has instead shifted its language to prescribe “eligibility requirements” for some women.
A third category is entirely possible in the future. With two categories, it is my opinion that WA would find it difficult to reconcile “yes, you are a woman” with “but you have permanently lost the right to compete as a woman”. I could be wrong of course.
That's exactly the argument IAAF made in the Chand case (but did not in the Semenya case). They made it clear it was a matter of a female athlete's eligibility in the female category.
"You are a woman, but you cannot compete in the women's category" is a perfectly legitimate argument. I have already given two examples of para eligibility and FIBA nationality rule.
Assuming this isn't irony, this is an outstanding job of telling everyone you don't have the faintest idea of the issues.
What’s the issue?
If you seriously don't know and think it is something to do with women getting breast enlargements then I really don't have enough time to educate you. If as I suspect that you are simply hoping I will waste my time telling you things you already know then bad luck.
I agree that the stereotypical sex roles, expectations, and behavior and dress norms for women - and men - vary widely from culture to culture and place to place. But this doesn't change the fact that the longstanding definition of the words woman and man are based on sex, not the sex stereotypes that constitute gender - and this is pretty much universally the case.
Not really disagreeing with RunRagged here, but just so everyone on this thread is clear, I would say the XY person below (posted originally by JustAnotherHobbyJogger) who completely lacks androgen receptors and does not respond to testosterone (has CAIS), with female-looking genitalia is - if one is forced to choose between only two genders - a "woman" even though her body contained male gonads.
Many of you would say she is "actually" a male or man, pretending to be a woman. I would prefer to say she is biologically intersex, but is fully a woman with respect to her gender category because that's the way she feels about herself and the way society treats her. I could also imagine someone with similar characteristics, perhaps partially sensitive to androgens, that would feel more comfortable claiming a non-binary gender identity, or even to be a man.
In any case, with respect to World Athletics rules, she would be eligible to compete as a woman, because her body lacks the receptors to take advantage of testosterone. What I am getting at is that "man" and "woman" are social categories that do not always map cleanly to male and female biological distinctions, say roughly 1.3% of the time, and if Seb could clearly make the distinction between the social and biological, instead of mixing the two concepts together, it would be helpful for all involved.
In this video I tell you my intersex story: from how I got my diagnosis in 2007 to how I deal with it today. If you are intersex and looking for resources ⬇️...
