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

If it’s as commonplace as you claim it’s justification for a third category in sports.

However it isn’t.

If you are an XY person with a birth defect, you are not a female. You are a male with a birth defect.

The whole episode is a slap in the face to women’s rights to compete against each other.

If you have the internal organs to develop a fertilized egg into a baby human, and then feed that baby human with milk you developed in your mammary glands, you are a female/woman.

Vancomycin wrote:

You get it! Yes exactly! Wow!

If testosterone is the key, as you and the IAAF claim. Then chromosomes do not matter - you just test for T.

If your favorite woman athlete right now pick, maybe someone like Coburn or Flanagan, was found to be XY - AIS, would you say she should be barred from women's competition? Honest question, I'm curious?

Armstronglivs wrote:

You have no idea how many AIS athletes compete as women but as the Syndrome doesn't allow for higher levels of testosterone - which is the key area of advantage in women's sport - then, really, who cares? Only a few pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself, who think that the existence of a tiny minority of chromosomal outliers changes the reality that defines most men and women.

Chromosomes do matter, as you won't have male levels of testosterone (or the many other physiological advantages of being male) without being XY. That is why the IAAF has identified the advantage issue in women's sport is with DSD males. If someone is XY but androgen insensitive and yet good enough to compete in elite women's sport then I would still say that they shouldn't be there. I am not interested in degrees of feminity in women's sport (as distinct from whatever else such individuals do with the other parts of their lives); if a line has to be drawn - and it does - I would do it there. Nice try, by the way, to single out certain athletes that are in all likelihood XX. But if they aren't, I would say they are competing in the wrong category.

Vancomycin wrote:

Unsurprisingly the BroJos remain silent. It seems they know their little gimmick is intentionally disingenuous/inflammatory, but it panders to a vocal subset of this site's clientele. Oh well....

I will not stop referencing chromosomes but I will try to do a better job of being 100% accurate.

That being said, what I wrote about the Birmingham DL wasn't incorrect. I wrote this, "And in the women’s 800, American Ajee’ Wilson did what she almost always does when she’s racing XX women — win — as she won comfortably in 2:00.76."

Now maybe someone in that field was XY AIS?

Fair enough. You make a fair point. I guess that's possible.

So from non on maybe I'll say something like this. "Ajee Wilson does what she almost always does when she's not racing XY DSD women."

I think the average person has no idea that Semenya is XY DSD. My article pointing out that fact is I believe the most read article in LetsRun history as people just weren't reading it elsewhere.

Semenya is what any objective person would few as intersex. No male external sexual organs but no ovary or womb and internal testes.

I appreciate the response. I find the XX/XY labels unnecessarily reductive. The IAAF used to gender test this way, but they stopped for nuanced (albeit important) reasons. I think its important to discuss the specifics here, including Semenya's specifics, and how we can use the data we have to create a fair sport for everyone. I just don't want people thinking the IAAF is missing something obvious etc. As you can see from this thread. There is still a widespread belief that this is super simple issue that the IAAF is making unnecessarily complicated!

Armstronglivs wrote:

if a line has to be drawn - and it does - I would do it there.

Ok, sure, history and the IAAF disagree.

Nice try, by the way, to single out certain athletes that are in all likelihood XX. But if they aren't, I would say they are competing in the wrong category.

I think you're really downplaying the degree of genetic extremism among elite athletes. Guidelines have to be determined with outliers in mind.

As for my examples - while they are statistically unlike to be XY, the fact you admit the possibility at least made you pause here. I detect a hint of nuance in your thinking now :)

Vancomycin wrote:

There is still a widespread belief that this is super simple issue that the IAAF is making unnecessarily complicated!

Widespread and correct. XY genotypes have an inherent advantage over XX, your long-winded red herrings notwithstanding. It doesn't matter who is diagnosed with what, and how, the Y chromosome imparts an advantage from the moment it begins influencing development.

If Caster ends up losing after T equalization, it will be despite still having the enormous advantage of masculine physical features which developed because of that Y chromosome. Those physical advantages will not just disappear.

Running 1:54 with a masculine body and masculine T levels is pretty good, but it's not elite. Elite would be sub 1:50, and still winning after T suppression. If red herrings like T levels remain the focus, eventually that's what will happen.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Vancomycin wrote:

There is still a widespread belief that this is super simple issue that the IAAF is making unnecessarily complicated!

Widespread and correct. XY genotypes have an inherent advantage over XX, your long-winded red herrings notwithstanding. It doesn't matter who is diagnosed with what, and how, the Y chromosome imparts an advantage from the moment it begins influencing development.

If Caster ends up losing after T equalization, it will be despite still having the enormous advantage of masculine physical features which developed because of that Y chromosome. Those physical advantages will not just disappear.

Running 1:54 with a masculine body and masculine T levels is pretty good, but it's not elite. Elite would be sub 1:50, and still winning after T suppression. If red herrings like T levels remain the focus, eventually that's what will happen.

Your points about the advantage of the Y chromosome are correct and important.

But I would be surprised if you could remain elite with T suppression. It has been estimated that Semenya would lose up to 7 seconds. However a sub-1.50-1.48 runner could likely beat 1.55 with T suppression.

Ridiculous. There are 3 categories:

Men

Women

It

Vancomycin wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

if a line has to be drawn - and it does - I would do it there.

Ok, sure, history and the IAAF disagree.

Nice try, by the way, to single out certain athletes that are in all likelihood XX. But if they aren't, I would say they are competing in the wrong category.

I think you're really downplaying the degree of genetic extremism among elite athletes. Guidelines have to be determined with outliers in mind.

As for my examples - while they are statistically unlike to be XY, the fact you admit the possibility at least made you pause here. I detect a hint of nuance in your thinking now :)

The IAAF has chosen to focus on a narrow front, with the specific advantage of testosterone, rather than risk taking on the more politically-laden question of gender definition. It may seem to the IAAF to be the more immediately winnable battle while achieving much the same general outcome, of excluding "maleness" from women's sports.

On your second point, genetic outliers are part of sport - but that is not the issue; differences of genetic category are.

Vancomycin wrote:

I appreciate the response. I find the XX/XY labels unnecessarily reductive. The IAAF used to gender test this way, but they stopped for nuanced (albeit important) reasons. I think its important to discuss the specifics here, including Semenya's specifics, and how we can use the data we have to create a fair sport for everyone. I just don't want people thinking the IAAF is missing something obvious etc. As you can see from this thread. There is still a widespread belief that this is super simple issue that the IAAF is making unnecessarily complicated!

Yeah, but those SJW types believe what they want to believe no matter what BroJos write. The only thing that matters to them is their righteousness. They are a kind of religious cult.

I can say after engaging in discussion about this topic for the past 6 months that both sides (including me, of course), as equally as unlikely to change their mind. You can see in this thread posts that are equally as self-righteous about the importance of a specific chromosome!

I Know Cult When I See One wrote:

Yeah, but those SJW types believe what they want to believe no matter what BroJos write. The only thing that matters to them is their righteousness. They are a kind of religious cult.

Bad Wigins wrote:

Widespread and correct. XY genotypes have an inherent advantage over XX, your long-winded red herrings notwithstanding. It doesn't matter who is diagnosed with what, and how, the Y chromosome imparts an advantage from the moment it begins influencing development.

If Caster ends up losing after T equalization, it will be despite still having the enormous advantage of masculine physical features which developed because of that Y chromosome. Those physical advantages will not just disappear.

Running 1:54 with a masculine body and masculine T levels is pretty good, but it's not elite. Elite would be sub 1:50, and still winning after T suppression. If red herrings like T levels remain the focus, eventually that's what will happen.

You don't know this. It makes sense on a simplistic level but nothing about human biology is simple.

"Masculine features" is a very vague term. Things like muscle mass will and do atrophy under hormone treatment. I don't know how the cardiovascular system responds, etc, and I don't think there's a large body of evidence out there.

Does a more square jaw make someone run faster? I don't think so. "Masculine features" feels like the biggest red herring here.

I think you have misunderstood. The "features" being referred to are not facial but physiological; apart from higher testosterone they include muscles, bone sstructure, and cardiovascular - all of which are typically different (greater) in males compared with females. As the gap between males in females in elite sports shows, these "features" are no red-herring.

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think you have misunderstood. The "features" being referred to are not facial but physiological; apart from higher testosterone they include muscles, bone sstructure, and cardiovascular - all of which are typically different (greater) in males compared with females. As the gap between males in females in elite sports shows, these "features" are no red-herring.

I covered muscles.

The rest is purely speculative. Just because something "feels" right doesn't mean its true, especially not in biology.

If it was simply about low T, Ryan Hall would be the women's world record holder in every distance event.

What I don't like here is labeling Ajee' Wilson as an xx woman, which is redundant and appears to make her some special case.

Can biological men stop competing as women?

Harambe wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

I think you have misunderstood. The "features" being referred to are not facial but physiological; apart from higher testosterone they include muscles, bone sstructure, and cardiovascular - all of which are typically different (greater) in males compared with females. As the gap between males in females in elite sports shows, these "features" are no red-herring.

I covered muscles.

The rest is purely speculative. Just because something "feels" right doesn't mean its true, especially not in biology.

That is incorrect. The differences between males and females are reflected not just in bigger and more dense muscle mass but bone structure and also greater cardio vascular capacity. That is not in any way speculative. It is well known. It explains the 10%-15% superiority that males have over females at the elite level in athletic sports.

What is the developmental process that drives those differences, you're claiming its not testosterone response?

Armstronglivs wrote:

That is incorrect. The differences between males and females are reflected not just in bigger and more dense muscle mass but bone structure and also greater cardio vascular capacity. That is not in any way speculative. It is well known. It explains the 10%-15% superiority that males have over females at the elite level in athletic sports.