MikeMach1977 wrote:
The IAAF rule was mostly put in to address intersex athletes, and the mode of lowering their testosterone (anti-androgen agents) does not (as far as I know) involve administration of estrogen which will have CRAZY effects on the body. Transgendered women take estrogen while transitioning.
I really don't think you can draw conclusions about June's case (and similar ones) on the basis of these other examples.
The rules currently apply to intersex as they were pointing to Semenya and the other 2 African women currently competing. However, it applies universally to intersex and trans women alike.
Irrespective of the levels of estrogen, higher testosterone levels at the time of competition and the advantage of going through male puberty convey advantages. At this point, we don't have a multi-factorial way of quantifying exactly what those advantages are and quite honestly we are going to err on the side of simplicity anyhow, hence the IAAFs ruling on testosterone levels. As noted, this is a highly studied phenomenon and depending on the study they don't simply measure things like hormones, but also look at things like muscle composition, strength indicators, etc. On top of studies, we have samples of cases where women were caught doping with testosterone or its derivatives and we know what it does.
At the end of the day I can empathize with June and anyone in her position and also want to preserve women's sports. I doubt there will ever be such a tidal wave of athletes to be able to make a separate category, so a compromise to allow people to compete while still reducing the advantage to as negligible amount as possible is to find a level of testosterone that is agreeable.
You keep talking about estrogen, however the standard is not looking at relative levels of hormones, but the amount of testosterone on the system. You might try also looking at studies on people who have taken testosterone (males and females). You seem to think that having more is something that can be reversed. There are many studies that show once you have taken them, the affects are long lasting. That is why many people want lifetime bans for people found taking them, citing this phenomenon as a strong reason not to let them back into competition.[/quote]
I keep talking about estrogen because that is a very relevant factor in this athlete's case. As far as I know, the NCAA doesn't test hormone levels or use the IAAFs limit of allowable testosterone levels. Estrogen has significant effects on the body which obviously impact performance immensely.
The above paper posted is very interesting - I hadn't seen that before. I would have assumed muscle strength would go down after treatment.
Physiologically, post-treatment trans-women are obviously going to be different than biological women. The above study suggests that they are stronger. Three are a ton of factors which go into performance in our sport. What I am interested in and what I think the crux of the issue is: do the physiological differences between trans-women (post hormonal therapy) and biological women result in significant and meaningful performance differences in track and field?