Solutions to ensure only xx non-sry women participate in women's events

Rojo is a lunatic if he thinks testosterone level restriction should be enforced. If a true XX woman naturally produced a lot of test they could possibly throw out one of the best athletes ever. If the level has to be under, lets say its "100 testosterone" the semenyas would shoot for 99.99. Then why cant the 87.5/100 testosterone women take something to boost them up as well?

How dare you put my picture on this thread.

You're lucky I'm an exhibitionist, or I'd phone Hillsburgh and Karmakaze.

I like the method proposed, and agree that testosterone regulation is neither viable nor adequate.

hehateme wrote:

Rojo is a lunatic if he thinks testosterone level restriction should be enforced. If a true XX woman naturally produced a lot of test they could possibly throw out one of the best athletes ever. If the level has to be under, lets say its "100 testosterone" the semenyas would shoot for 99.99. Then why cant the 87.5/100 testosterone women take something to boost them up as well?

Semenya would be no different than male athletes who get TUEs to allow them to increase their exercise induced "low" T-values.

If I take my black Ford F150, tweak the engine to certain restrictions, lower the car and change the wheels, and paint ot white it is NOT now a white Ford Focus.

There were a number of good posts in the other thread too (SEMENYA jogs).http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7489860&page=14The worst solution was that of Ross Tucker, which essentially sets an ever-moving bar (T-levels, but what if someone doesn't partly/respond to T, and what is "substantial" in perf advantage, etc.). Make a compromise now, be bitten by it tomorrow (if you get a mouse a cookie...)

Here are better ones.

Conditions A (female in law) and Z (female in self-identification) should have no relevance. A female to male transgender should be allowed to compete in the women's category as long as (s)he isn't taking any hormones.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Conditions A (female in law) and Z (female in self-identification) should have no relevance.

Agreed.

A female to male transgender should be allowed to compete in the women's category as long as (s)he isn't taking any hormones.

If she's an XX, Non-SRY female, and hasn't taken any male hormones (or any other aids) for 2 years, then that sounds okay, unless someone knows of good reasons why not.

My W8 is f9 wrote:

He looks like half the guys that work at an office and eats pizza? A beta male is the new female athlete?

Usually only females have the XX chromosome (no Y component), but occasionally

males with the SRY gene which gives them an advantage, will have the XX chromosome.

Because of this, having the XX chromosome is not enough of a standard.

Specifying XX female, with no SRY-gene, is a better standard to have.

Currently, female in law is about the only condition of relevance in IAAF (rule #141).

To compete in the men's competition, you need to be legally male and meet subsidiary rules (anti-doping, etc.).

To Compete in the women's competition, you need to be legally female and meet subsidiary rules (hyperandrogenism is not currently one of them, after the CAS interim award in the Dutee Chand case).

That's why the CAS decided as they did (they just applied IAAF rules, and noted there is no "third group", so no chance for intersex persons who are legally female to compete in "men's" ), so that's where the solution has to come from.

Currently, there is no consideration of transgender athletes per se by the IAAF, but they require that transsexual athletes meet "IAAF Regulations Governing Eligibility of Athletes Who Have Undergone Sex Reassignment to Compete in Women's Competitions." These say "These Regulations (1.4) do not apply to cases of female to male sex reassignment." So if female-to-male transgenders do not legally change their female status to male status (independent of whether they have sex reassigned), they can still compete in the women's competition, regardless of hormones.

Similarly, in the male-to-female case, if you don't undergo sex reassignment (so transgender rather than transsexual), and just get a legal document saying you are female, then you can compete in the women's, as these regulations do not apply to you (alternatively, you can retain a male legal document, and compete in the men's).

The loophole appears to be that IAAF thinks that legal documents regarding "male" and "female" will have something to do with sex assignment, when in today's society that is increasingly a non-sure bet. So I agree with you two that "legal" is not the best condition to uphold for eligibility, but if you want to ensure the integrity of women's competitions, probably more exclusionary clauses is better (less loopholes).

The Preface to the Sex Reassignment regulations starts by talking about transsexuals and their legal rights, but don't consider transgender-nontranssexuals (people who don't have sex reassignment, but do associate with a gender other their sex). Those interested in solutions (like tighter language) should probably study the example of Iranian's women's football team, which had/has some large number (8?) of transgender folks, none of whom had undergone sex reassignment (at least per media reports).

What does "XX female" mean? XX chromosomes, and (solely) female biologically? Namely female sexual/reproductive organs and no male analogues? When you write regulations, you have to more specific, or corner-cases will bite you.

Subject "Solutions to ensure only xx non-sry women participate in women's events"

Well then, given that title, isn't the solution obvious now? Change the rules to say "only xx non-sry women can participate in women's events"... then wait for the social firestorm.

consider transgender-nontranssexuals (people who don't have sex reassignment, but do associate with a gender other their sex)

That we can even talk rationally about (say) a female who biologically chooses to be transsexed to male, but still wishes to retain female gender self-identification, and their ensuing "rights" in women's athletics, this is a bit mind boggling.

relevant to iaaf wrote:

What does "XX female" mean? XX chromosomes, and (solely) female biologically? Namely female sexual/reproductive organs and no male analogues? When you write regulations, you have to more specific, or corner-cases will bite you.

Yes.

Solution by definition wrote:

Subject "Solutions to ensure only xx non-sry women participate in women's events"

Well then, given that title, isn't the solution obvious now? Change the rules to say "only xx non-sry women can participate in women's events"... then wait for the social firestorm.

We welcome the firestorm to have a reasonable solution implemented, to ensure only 100 percent biological women in women's events.

Head spinning wrote:

That we can even talk rationally about (say) a female who biologically chooses to be transsexed to male, but still wishes to retain female gender self-identification, and their ensuing "rights" in women's athletics, this is a bit mind boggling.

Indeed!