Does Caster Semenya have a Y chromosome or not?

Vancomycin wrote:

Read this. It covers the main reasons that men have higher performance. Hint: Y chromosome isn't sufficient.

T limits have to be instituted because we dont't have a good test for what is a "male" or "female."

Maybe one day we will have a way to measure all the variables at play.

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/05/on-dsds-the-theory-of-testosterone-performance-the-cas-ruling-on-caster-semenya/

You continue to misrepresent the argument. It is not that of seeking to define definitively what establishes sex or gender; it is a practical question of how to preserve the integrity - the fairness - of women's sport by excluding significant advantage that can only come from male genetics. Male levels of testosterone are clearly such an advantage; the only scientific debate is over the extent of the advantage. It is not an equal debate, either - the weight of the argument still lies with the view that testosterone is critical to athletic potential; only someone blind to men's and women's sport cannot - or will not - see that.

Your points are well-stated but still wrong. You are wrong about the role played by the media. I say this as someone who has had a career in journalism. The media do not examine the issues as either scientists or academics might; they will typically - and largely unreflectively - simplify issues to conform to prevailing orthodoxies. Increasingly, the prevailing orthodoxy on this subject - driven by a vociferous campaign from the liberal-left - is that gender is a spectrum and not binary, and its advocates seek to enlist science to justify this view.

But it is a view that depends less on science and genetics and more on playing with words and in particular definitions of the terms 'male' and 'female'. At the risk of sounding reductionist, it enables gender to be what anyone says it is, through 'identifying' with a preferred gender, and the agenda is political not scientific. It has successfully gained the upper hand in a media that doesn't question opinion presented to it as expert opinion. On this, Rojo is right.

The CAS report and ruling apply only to athletes with an XY DSD (disorder of sexual development) chromosomal condition. The ruling has been applied to Semenya. Semenya has appealed the ruling, indicating that she has standing. Ergo, she has an XY chromosome pattern.

That is not, of course, the whole story. But it would be advisable to know some facts before spouting off.

Is global warming a "prevailing orthodoxy"? Is the media wrong to represent it as such? The media doesn't always do this either. My point was that highlighting Sax in such a way is analogous to the way an outlet like CNN would give disproportionate airtime to the one climate skeptic-- representing maybe 5% of the scientific community. If you believe that academic consensus is really driven by a cabal of mad leftists, our debate most likely ends right here.

If the spectrum view of gender is politically driven, you'd have to admit this to be the case with the opposing view. Sax used his scientific claims to push a conservative political agenda regarding childhood education.

You seem to be to distinguishing the academic community and scientific one. The advocates (at least the credible ones) do not "enlist" science as you suggest. Intersex conditions are complex, which is why I mentioned AIS. Views that gender is a spectrum is supported by science.

That gender is a spectrum is not supported by science; at best you can say there are only some, who, describing themselves as scientists, make this claim. It is not a view that has been by any means universally endorsed. It remains highly contentious. I know specialists in the medical profession who simply don't go along with it. The chief problem with the spectrum argument is that while there are indeed some individuals who don't fit the usual male/female biological criteria they are very few. Our understanding of the world is not turned on its head by statistical exceptions.

To return to the role of the media, it is not an institution that is governed by intellectual rigour - with the exception of some individual journalists. As a professional culture it selects or is influenced by that which is deemed newsworthy - and the controversial view is always seen as newsworthy. Examination of the merits of that view is not usually the media's practice; controversial views are generally juxtaposed in reports with an opposing opinion, for putative balance and because conflict adds to the sensational effect of the story. Skilled media campaigners, such as politicians and lobby groups, are easily able to exploit these reporting conventions. The gender debate has its share of lobbyists - but questioning politicised assertions doesn't necessarily make you the same, as you have implied. We are entitled to call out bullsh*t without being automatically guilty of the same.

Stybba wrote:

The CAS report and ruling apply only to athletes with an XY DSD (disorder of sexual development) chromosomal condition. The ruling has been applied to Semenya. Semenya has appealed the ruling, indicating that she has standing. Ergo, she has an XY chromosome pattern.

That is not, of course, the whole story. But it would be advisable to know some facts before spouting off.

And if XY is not a male genetic characteristic, what is it? I would also suggest that it is implicit that the IAAF proposal limiting testosterone for female competitors has clear implications for any athlete who has such features.

Turner Syndrome, AIS, "hermaphroditism", all sorts of conditions with supporting scientific literature that concern individuals who do not neatly conform to the traditional male/female binary. In the case of AIS, there are complete, mild, and partial forms, all with varying degrees of masculinization. In other words, not all intersex individuals with XY are created equal; there are traits AIS individuals might have that could give an advantage, but there are some that don't. Also, there are certainly XX individuals with elevated testosterone, what about them?

You acknowledge that there are individuals with intersex traits that make it difficult to identify them as male or female and yet you reject the spectrum view of gender? Look, you don't have to understand gender as a spectrum, but I don't see how anyone can reasonably say that there are males and females and the rest is more or less conspiracy.

1% of 7 billion is hardly a statistical exception. That's 70 million people.

Let's say for argument's sake that the percentage is lower, as Rojo claims based on dated research. It still doesn't really matter.

Regarding statistical exceptions and their often unexpected (or, as you suggest, overblown) impact, I'll appeal to that annoying philosophical conundrum about swans: If you have a sample of 99 white swans but 1 black swan, you can't logically say that whiteness is a necessary condition of being a swan. That is to say, unlikely or unpredictable observances of the world often require us to reevaluate our thinking, whether we like it or not.

Regardless of whether gender is a spectrum, the iaaf divisions are not. It’s binary. Semenya does not conform to those divisions. So either she can compete in the open division ie men or they can create more categories for the many points on the spectrum. Either way she won’t and shouldn’t be competing against non intersex women. None of your sex sociology phd jibber jabber matters.

Sorry to break it to you, but it does matter. That's what makes it an issue, and that's why there are experts on this kind of thing, to help the public understand.

Your solution seems to be to line women up, look up their skirts, and tell them who they really are regardless of what science actually tells us about their possible advantage. Not only is this kind of gender policing degrading and inhumane, it is also ignoring the facts-- that there are intersex individuals that may not have an elevated testosterone levels beyond that of other women and so would pose no competitive threat.

If we're talking about testosterone levels, then sorry again, these distinctions matter. My point to Rojo is that XY doesn't necessarily mean that the individual has an unfair advantage, and it definitely doesn't mean we should just consider them men.

What implications does gender being a spectrum have on a sport with two divisions? Can you set that up first before diving deep in a literature review? Life tip first make a compelling argument for why what you’re ranting about matters.

In other words if we conclude a then we should do x or alternatively if one were to conclude b the y is the best path forward. This isn’t academia. There are problems and we need solutions not just theories and lit reviews.

I don’t have an opinion one way or another as to the social science of gender. My opinion is that what you are saying doesn’t matter and does not address the crisis the middle distance women’s running is facing. The only person looking up skirts here is you which also seems to be your life’s work.

Rojo is the one who brought up XY as the fundamental factor in determining whether an individual has unfair advantage, not me. I was responding in kind, according to recent scholarship.

The spectrum debate debate is related.

Problems and solutions should be addressed with evidence and consideration, don’t you agree? That means considering the entire body of data and not just cherry picking an author like Sax.

Dr. R wrote:

Rojo is the one who brought up XY as the fundamental factor in determining whether an individual has unfair advantage, not me. I was responding in kind, according to recent scholarship.

The spectrum debate debate is related.

My reading of Rojo's article was that the XY karyotype is an important factor, and certainly one that should be communicated to the public by journalists reporting on the issue.

Yes she does. However, the IAAF muddied the water by saying that 46XYDSD can compete as women, as long as they get their testosterone levels down into the (traditionally) female range.

Still an open question whether transgender athletes like CeCe Telfer would be allowed to compete if his/her testosterone levels are sufficiently lowered.

Right, I’m basically saying it’s not so straightforward when it comes to determining advantage.

Whether it should be reported or not— it doesn’t seem like such an outrage to me since I don’t view it as essential, but I’m ok with the debate.

Dr. R wrote:

Right, I’m basically saying it’s not so straightforward when it comes to determining advantage.

It's straightforward to us plebs who follow track and field and see Semenya, Niyonsabo and Wambui clean up in the 800, our eyes, experience and common sense don't deceive us when it comes to determining advantage.

If gender is a spectrum (as you claim is proven by science), but IAAF classes are binary, then the pragmatic solution is to put ALL those that even lean to the male side of the spectrum in the open male class and be extremely selective for the protected female class and only include those that meet multiple female criteria.

Justice4caster wrote:

The Y chromosome has not been proven. Stop trying to drag someone down because they are talented and not pretty enough for you. She deserves to be treated with respect.

The IAAF ruling specifically only targets athletes 46 XY DSD with high testosterone levels.

Caster’s management have said it is targetting her, the implication being that she has 46 XY DSD.

And if read up about the clinical definition of 46 XY DSD, it’s quite clear that the source of the extreme elevated testosterone would be functional, in the sense of producing bioavailable testosterone, testes.

This was also in medical details leaked to a member of the press a number of years ago.