Can the BroJos stop using XX / XY as descriptors in the women's 800m races?

Nope, I like calling it as it is and support Brojos using XX and XY.

Vancomycin wrote:

The IAAF makes no decisions on eligibility based on karyotype; the distinction is meaningless for the sport. Please use "testosterone rule eligible/ineligible."

Hormones can be manipulated, very easily.

Your chromosomes, not so much.

Stop using biological facts that offend my views!

okay then....... wrote:

Stop using biological facts that offend my views!

Hahahahahaa yes!

okay then....... wrote:

Stop using biological facts that offend my views!

Can you read? The OP is not offended. He is (correctly) pointing out that the XX/XY distinction is irrelevant to an athlete’s eligibility and that it would make more sense to highlight the distinction that the rules actually apply to.

I agree with the Brojos and am glad that Semenya will be unable to compete given her current testosterone levels. That doesn’t invalidate the OP’s point though.

Vancomycin wrote:

The IAAF makes no decisions on eligibility based on karyotype; the distinction is meaningless for the sport. Please use "testosterone rule eligible/ineligible."

no

Vancomycin wrote:

The IAAF makes no decisions on eligibility based on karyotype; the distinction is meaningless for the sport. Please use "testosterone rule eligible/ineligible."

They do though, because someone who is XX and has high levels of testosterone is ok to compete, as long as the high T level is natural of course.

IAAF was beating around the bush with that decision.

I’m barely starting a nursing program and the IAAF are morons for determining that the difference between an XX and XY person is testosterone levels. There’s also bone length, bone density, heart and lung size, hip width (narrower on males), and let’s not forget reproductive organs womb, uterus, etc. and other hormones related to child development in the womb. And also mammary glands and hormones to stimulate milk production.

Let’s not forget 10s of thousands of years of evolution related to males being hunters and women bring gatherers and child rearers.

The testosterone limit ruling was idiotic and now they are paying for their idiocy. So are all real female athletes.

XX category and open category. That’s what we need.

Not even a real scientist wrote:

I’m barely starting a nursing program

High t females? wrote:

IAAF was beating around the bush with that decision.

good one

Vancomycin wrote:

The IAAF makes no decisions on eligibility based on karyotype; the distinction is meaningless for the sport. Please use "testosterone rule eligible/ineligible."

If they had done that decades ago, the current controversy would not exist. A different one would though.

The desire to be inclusive has created a controversy.

I'll always prefer the truth to whatever is easier on the ears.

Luv2Run wrote:

Vancomycin wrote: The IAAF makes no decisions on eligibility based on karyotype; the distinction is meaningless for the sport. Please use "testosterone rule eligible/ineligible."

If they had done that decades ago, the current controversy would not exist. A different one would though.

The desire to be inclusive has created a controversy.

It's not the desire to be inclusive; it is a desire to distinguish the single factors that make the biggest difference. Many people go through life as women who have XY chromosomes without necessarily ever knowing it. Perhaps Caster would be in that boat if she were not an athlete. At one point historically, chromosomes were used as a distinguishing characteristic, then the IAAF moved towards testosterone, as it was felt to be more accurate. The issue with using T as a benchmark, is there is still difficulty in determining the thresholds, and even if a threshold is reasonable, it's possible one's body can't make use of the extra T and should still be allowed to compete.

That's a very simple rendering as I understand it. Ross Tucker goes through the issue in some depth in his new podcast.

You're close:

The 100% scientific divisions must be:

1. The Y chromosome Group

2. The No Y chromosome Group

Agree with the BroJos. Many seem to think the truth is something they want and let the facts get in the way. A lot like all the humanities departments at my University.

"Y" division and "No Y" Division wrote:

You're close:

The 100% scientific divisions must be:

1. The Y chromosome Group

2. The No Y chromosome Group

Athletic competition between men and women is split because they're built and perform differently.

Hormonally, Semenya was a man competing with women.

It's a doping offense to obtain such high testosterone artificially, because this alters body composition and yields to dramatic performance gains.

Why, then, should genetic females who anomalously produce extreme testosterone be permitted to compete "as is". The playing field is nothing like level.

Imperfect as it is, the IOC is on the right track approaching gender criteria based on hormone levels:

"IOC transgender policy that lowers the upper limit for testosterone to 5nmol... will slow the times of these athletes down even more than it did in the past.

... Semenya will lose about four seconds to five seconds. Because in 2013 and 2014, when the IAAF were diligent about ensuring her compliance with the upper limit at that time (10nM), she was running 2:00. I don’t think she even qualified for the Commonwealth Games. Now, at 5nM, that effect will be even larger, I suspect. She will go from a 1:54 to 2:01-2:03"

^From the same article, for those who don't want to scan it, the IAAF rationale:

...increasing testosterone levels in women from 0.9 nmol/L to just 7.3 nmol/L increases muscle mass by 4% and muscle strength by 12-26%; while increasing it to 5, 7, 10 and 19 nmol/L respectively increases circulating haemoglobin by 6.5%, 7.8%, 8.9% and 11% respectively. Taking all available knowledge and data into account, the experts estimate that the ergogenic advantage in having circulating testosterone levels in the normal male range rather than in the normal female range is greater than 9%.”

“To the best of our knowledge, there is no other genetic or biological trait encountered in female athletics that confers such a huge performance advantage.”

At least we seem to have a women's 800m event again.