Has Sonia got it right about hyperandrogenism?

average_runner

Ah ok, so its pretty much fake news.

robinph

Sport manages fairly well at categorising people based on their physical characteristics and who can compete against each other to make things as fair as possible for everyone. It's called para sport (and combat sports).

It's just a new thing to have to deal with a gradient on the gender scale as we are not used to the line being so vague between the existing categories. No one would think it odd for a boxer to change between weight divisions, and whilst probably less common para athletes change category every now and then, either because of a change in their mobility or a re-assessment of their ability.

Either a third gender category is created, or the likes of a WAVA age grading is used instead to give a handicap score based on something like Testosterone levels and just have one competition for all. Neither of those are going to happen anytime soon though.

Murph_D

It’s really irritating to see the Semenya issue constantly conflated with the transgender issue. They are not the same, regardless of what some people - many of whom should know better - would like to believe.

I know it’s been referenced before, but the Science of Sport podcast is the best source for understanding the nuance of this whole state of affairs.

https://shows.pippa.io/the-science-of-sport-podcast

FWIW (and this podcast goes into this, on the second episode), the CAS requirement for athletes like Semenya et al to be subjected to an untested medication regime was always going to be another can of worms - not that it’s clear from the above link which human rights are being violated.

Fusitive

Murph_D wrote: »

It’s really irritating to see the Semenya issue constantly conflated with the transgender issue. They are not the same, regardless of what some people - many of whom should know better - would like to believe.

I know it’s been referenced before, but the Science of Sport podcast is the best source for understanding the nuance of this whole state of affairs.

https://shows.pippa.io/the-science-of-sport-podcast

FWIW (and this podcast goes into this, on the second episode), the CAS requirement for athletes like Semenya et al to be subjected to an untested medication regime was always going to be another can of worms - not that it’s clear from the above link which human rights are being violated.

The IAAF have actually given more leniency to intersex athletes than trans athletes and although intersex is more ambiguous, they both are on the same line and fall under the same categorisation under the CAS ruling(Not biologically female), why are people failing to understand this? Trans and intersex people are not the same biologically but they are not biologically female period which is the division the IAAF is trying to protect.

They are both not also required to take hormone blockers as you have said, only if they want to compete in the female division are they required to do that. They do not have to compete in those events or that division. Trans athletes or any athlete with XY chromosomes(DSD intersex inc.) has had to take hormone blockers since 2004, this is not new and is not a violation of human rights as it is actually a legal requirement in many countries to have surgery or hormone suppression to be recognised as MtF trans. Remember 46 XY DSD people are not Female either, they are intersex. Only 4 countries in the World accept self-determination as a legal gender identity(and frankly, I don't think many people here have a problem with Semenya or the other 46XY DSD athletes saying they identify as Women). The problem is when someone who is not biologically female competes in a female division where they have a clear advantage.

Of course it's discrimination to exclude intersex people from the female division but it is also discriminatory to have a female division period. Sometimes discrimination is a necessary evil like in cases like this. If the IAAF allow intersex athletes to compete naturally in the female division, it sets precedence for MtF trans athletes to do the same and vice versa and gender identity takes precedence meaning self-determination is the entry level to female sport. You see this already with the biological male sprinters in Connecticut who are winning female highschool state titles because state law which governs the school system has a self-determination legal code. As much as you don't see it, these are all linked whether trans, intersex or male trying to compete in a female division(I don't care about self-determination being the law as it is in Ireland already but I think the rules in sport should be different). Trans athletes were given an inch by the IOC ruling in 2004 despite huge opposition to it so that they could express themselves socially in sport, that very ruling lead to where we are now with this mess and ultimately if the IAAF give a mile to intersex athletes now, trans athletes will want that too and self-determination will become the only means meaning 100% biological males will be able to compete in Women's divisions too. In fact in Ireland under the current laws, I can self-determine as a woman right now and get a court to sign off on it and run as a female in my county or national championships and no one can stop me(This is not something I would do as I'm not MtF or intersex or feel like a woman in any way but I would be hugely physically advantaged and illustrates why sport should be able to operate outside of the law and human rights legislation of a country or globally like the IAAF has and was given power to do). Just because an MtF or intersex athlete feels like a woman doesn't mean they are physically a female. It also showcases the hole between policy on physical changes and self-determination which makes these precedence possible.

Any sex whether intersex or male or MtF that is outside of biologically female should not be allowed to compete in Female sport scientifically in my mind, the slight political leniancy in me says maybe they can if they want but they have to alter hormones(as little as I like the idea of medicated people) despite knowing that they will still possess advantages of early foetul development to male type puberty even when testosterone levels are restricted.

As for human rights violations, there is only 4 possible outcomes to this case

Self-determination(the death of female sport)

Protection of womens sport(Restriction on hormones, medical intervention)

Open division(Females, MtF trans and intersex all lose rights to compete in female division and everyone on the sex spectrum from elite males to elite females compete as one)

Seperate divisions for Male, Female and Intersex and trans athletes(intersex and trans lose their right to express their gender identity in sport)

Pick your poison...

Conflation of trans and intersex 46 XY DSD athletes despite their differences is a very pertinent discussion imo as the both fall into categories outside the female sex spectrum and the Case of the IAAF is about the protection of womens sport and they are intrinsically linked.

If someone wants to tell me an ass, I will understand that viewpoint here as everyone is an ass in some way and discriminating against someone else no matter what opinion you hold from what I've seen but there's one question I think is important for anyone to answer first.

What is your solution and where do you draw the line between self-determination and a complete ban If medical intervention is not a goer in your book? I see a lot of judgement but very few actual positions in these debates.

Oregano_State

Very well said Fusitive

Murph_D

Fusitive wrote: »

What is your solution and where do you draw the line between self-determination and a complete ban If medical intervention is not a goer in your book? I see a lot of judgement but very few actual positions in these debates.

Completely agree with the principle of protecting women’s sport. The problems, as they’ve transpired, are:

a. Determining M or F. The fair way is to limit to ‘biologically F’ (or as Tucker puts it, ‘female enough’) - that excludes transgender (and biological males who merely ‘identify’). But it doesn’t necessarily exclude DSD athletes in the grey area. That’s why the transgender argument is different (or at least how I understand it as different).

b. In the grey area, if you can include DSD athletes, how do you ensure a level playing field? The proposed discriminatory method is via testosterone (T) levels.

I used to think this was a clear enough argument. But I’ve changed my mind as I’ve been convinced by Tucker’s arguments in the podcasts linked above, or the related blogs, that (even though T is THE significant factor differentiating M/F performance levels) T levels alone are insufficient to guarantee advantage (sometimes the athlete is insensitive, or only partly, to her T). IAAF were thus asked to come back with evidence to support their T argument and they did. Whether this evidence is flawed or not is yet another complicating factor - but arguably irrelevant as CAS accepted it. You would hope for ‘unflawed’ evidence that would be more robust. But it was accepted and thus we were back to the situation with DSDs having to take suppressants if they want to compete (I know they don’t HAVE to compete in F sports - that’s a red herring, and we need more nuance than the trans/identity argument allows).

So yes - I believe in protecting the category, but the method for excluding naturally different DSD athletes must be both evidence based and robust (and only good data provides robust evidence; only good rulings are robust enough to withstand challenge). Theory is not enough - it’s good for setting up testable hypotheses, but not evidence in itself). History is littered with legislation based on bad or no evidence.

And finally the playing field leveller - if it’s to be medication, it must be able to withstand the challenges of the medical professionals who will be asked to prescribe and supervise - ie more testing. WMO has already said they have problems with it - how can that be sustainable?

If the situation is so clear cut with regard to DSD advantage, we must be capable of proving it, and regulating a safe and fair solution, otherwise it will continue to be appealed and potentially overruled. I want to protect the category, but only fairly. Don’t think we are there yet with this one.

robinph

At the moment there just isn't enough known, so the line has to be drawn somewhere and that is the line they picked. Should it be the IAAF coming up with the evidence to support their position though, or those effected by the line finding enough evidence to counter it?

When Pistouris was arguing about his new type of legs being OK to run against fully legged athletes it was his side that needed to provide the evidence about that, not the IAAF doing it for him. They had their line in the sand of only fully legged athletes compete in this category of event, if you are missing legs then you are in that category. The person lobbying for the change should be going about collecting the evidence to support it.

Yes, it's not an easy task to get that research done which does put a bit of a block in the way, but there is no "right" to compete.

Fusitive

Murph_D wrote: »

Completely agree with the principle of protecting women’s sport. The problems, as they’ve transpired, are:

a. Determining M or F. The fair way is to limit to ‘biologically F’ (or as Tucker puts it, ‘female enough’) - that excludes transgender (and biological males who merely ‘identify’). But it doesn’t necessarily exclude DSD athletes in the grey area. That’s why the transgender argument is different (or at least how I understand it as different).

b. In the grey area, if you can include DSD athletes, how do you ensure a level playing field? The proposed discriminatory method is via testosterone (T) levels.

I used to think this was a clear enough argument. But I’ve changed my mind as I’ve been convinced by Tucker’s arguments in the podcasts linked above, or the related blogs, that (even though T is THE significant factor differentiating M/F performance levels) T levels alone are insufficient to guarantee advantage (sometimes the athlete is insensitive, or only partly, to her T). IAAF were thus asked to come back with evidence to support their T argument and they did. Whether this evidence is flawed or not is yet another complicating factor - but arguably irrelevant as CAS accepted it. You would hope for ‘unflawed’ evidence that would be more robust. But it was accepted and thus we were back to the situation with DSDs having to take suppressants if they want to compete (I know they don’t HAVE to compete in F sports - that’s a red herring, and we need more nuance than the trans/identity argument allows).

The ruling is not made on Testosterone levels alone, that was the old ruling. From the IAAF regulations on female eligibility after the CAS hearing:

The DSD regulations only apply to individuals who are:

Legally female (or intersex) and who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have:

Male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX)

Testes not ovaries.

Circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’).


The ruling is now a combination of Chromosomes, sexual reproductive organs, T levels and androgen sensitivity. I haven't listened to a Tucker piece on this in a while but if he thinks high T levels alone are the reason, he is out of touch or hasn't read the new regulations yet

Fusitive

Further reading on the IAAF position. Obviously one sided but an insight none the less

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.iaaf.org/news/amp/press-release/questions-answers-iaaf-female-eligibility-reg

Murph_D

Further reading here too on the scientific integrity of the IAAF position, etc.

https://twitter.com/rogerpielkejr/status/1135860309892194304?s=21

Murph_D

Fusitive wrote: »

The ruling is now a combination of Chromosomes, sexual reproductive organs, T levels and androgen sensitivity. I haven't listened to a Tucker piece on this in a while but if he thinks high T levels alone are the reason, he is out of touch or hasn't read the new regulations yet

Of course he is not out of touch. He was involved in the hearings. I was simplifying based on the T element. For the record (and I haven’t seen this, or have forgotten - how is androgen sensitivity measured?)

goose2005

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

It is tough on her but also if she didn't have these issues where would she be in running terms? Would she have had the experience of travelling the world and competing in these top events?

There are people that are genetically gifted in the normal sense and then there are those that are not but who train like dogs but never come near the elite level. I'd have more sympathy with them.

I believe Semenya was raised as a boy right up until it was realised that as a woman, Caster would be a world-class athlete

TFBubendorfer

goose2005 wrote: »

I believe Semenya was raised as a boy right up until it was realised that as a woman, Caster would be a world-class athlete

That is utterly, totally and completely untrue.
It can also be interpreted as a homophobic statement.

average_runner

goose2005 wrote: »

I believe Semenya was raised as a boy right up until it was realised that as a woman, Caster would be a world-class athlete

People should stop making wild accusations about Caster, unless people have the proof.