Forum menu
@Kcr, well of course there many different DSDs. But it does come down to trans (normal male biology, female gender identity), intersex (abnormal male biology, female gender identity), and simply 'biological female'.
As far as the IAAF is concerned, the intersex group does in fact break down as I said, i.e. those who have testes & to any extent process their testicular testosterone, and those who do not.
They list:
(i) she has one of the following DSDs:
(A) 5α-reductase type 2 deficiency;
(B) partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS);
(C) 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 (17β- HSD3) deficiency;
(D) ovotesticular DSD; or
(E) any other genetic disorder involving disordered gonadal steroidogenesis;
and
(ii) as a result, she has circulating testosterone levels in blood of five (5) nmol/L or
above;
and
(iii) she has sufficient androgen sensitivity for those levels of testosterone to have a
material androgenising effect.
These disorders are all different in exactly how they work - 17β-HSD3 is the specific isoenzyme responsible for converting androstenedione (A4) to testosterone (T) in the testes, so this gives people with testes and this disorder (there is a different 17β-HSD isoenzyme in the ovaries converting A4 to T there) lots of A4 and not enough T.
This is clearly different from 5-ARD2, where you have all the T, but a shortage of DHT.
An ovotesticular DSD is aka pseudohermaphroditism (true hermaphroditism does not exist in humans), where you have both ovarian and testicular tissue.
While PAIS is the partial failure of the androgen receptor to process T.
In terms of fairness in sport the division is really quite simple: men have testes producing lots of T, which is the #1 performance-enhancing steroid, while women have ovaries producing E, which restricts height (bad, generally, for sport), and increases body fat (also bad).
There isn't exactly a division other than that between the class of people with testes, and the class of people without testes. There's no more nebulous concept such as 'lady brain', or chromosomes per se, or whatever, it comes down to testosterone and testes.
So the IAAF have said to one particular group of people with testes who wish to compete in the group of people without testes, that they should restrict their testosterone to levels somewhat in the range of the group of people without testes.
Given the major performance advantage offered by T, it does not seem to me that this is exactly unfair.
We are not restricting Caster Semenya's natural womanly biology, but simply paying some regard to the reality that before testicular testosterone kicks in, at puberty, girls might have some hope of beating boys in a race, while after several years of the testes pumping out pubertal levels (which are sub-adult, incidentally) of testosterone, they will have no hope left.
It really is all about the balls, and the fact that where one participant has them and the other does not you have a very basic fairness issue, and one that doesn't require any reference to 'gender identity', etc., just an observation, even, that those Eastern European athletes who were doped with what amount to testicular levels of T only as adults (i.e. not experiencing testicular T during puberty, as Semenya did), experienced such overwhelming advantages that current-day women stand no chance of beating their times.
Yep. STW in "expert answer to obscure question" success once again. The only thing I'd like to see added to that would be some idea of the number of people falling into each category. I've seen figures suggesting around 1.7% of the population not falling into the traditional male/female categories. That seems like a vast exaggeration, but maybe it's correct?
We are, however and as usual, veering off at a it a tangent to the RACHEL Mackinnon / Trans in general issue.
Mcj78, I think alexnharvey was trying to say that having testicles and miles more testosterone gives a blatantly obvious advantage that no amount of training if born female could of matched. Muscle mass, bone density, hip placement, lung structure etc all make it easier to push harder, the biology of the male body is just more powerful and more efficient at using that power. Those comments triggered a few people for that reason plus Robert Forstemann doesn't race women so that's irrelevant, playing devil's advocate or not, you simply cannot reverse all those advantages or replicate them, thats why female to male never results in gold medals or any success, a female to male boxer or ufc fighter would get destroyed or die. But would any male athlete feel proud of beating the competition if it was made up of trans?
The only thing I’d like to see added to that would be some idea of the number of people falling into each category. I’ve seen figures suggesting around 1.7% of the population not falling into the traditional male/female categories. That seems like a vast exaggeration, but maybe it’s correct?
This is not correct. Essentially all sex hormones start off as cholesterol, and they are converted using the P450scc (cholesterol side chain cleavage) enzyme into pregnenolone (P5). P5 is then converted down a chain to form all of oestrogen, testosterone, progesterone, cortisol, etc.
The conversions take place in various parts of the body, but the P450scc does nearly all its work in the adrenal glands and in the gonads.
Since the hormones are produced in a long and often reversible chain of reductions and oxidations, trouble at the top, so to speak, can result in dangerous (fatal even) hormonal imbalances.
This is i.e. congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH). This fairly obviously refers to a congenital condition affecting the adrenal glands, and specifically any one of the several dozen enzymes responsible for one or more hormone conversions (e.g., testosterone into oestradiol).
Essentially the different enzymes are linked to specific genes, so a mutation on one of those genes can lead to an hormonal imbalance. The most common form of CAH is due to a mutation in the gene associated with the 21-hydroxylase enzyme, which causes the oxidation of progesterones into corticosteroids. The other pathway for progesterones is to be reduced, creating the androgen A4, which is reduced to T, which is reduced to the androgen DHT.
So essentially because the circulating hormones are not being converted into corticosteroids, they instead end up being converted into androgens instead.
Those androgens androgenize (duh), resulting in an over-virilised girl (no visible effect on boys' genitals, but the lack of corticosteroids causes a sodium imbalance).
Except that CAH is considered to either be 'classical' or 'late-onset'.
The classical form is subject to screening, since it is life-threatening. Hormonal medication will address the imbalance. Since it is manifested at birth, classical CAH is considered an 'intersex' condition for girls only, in that androgens may have virilized their genitals to create ambiguous or apparently maculine genitals. In some cases surgery is performed on infant girls with classical CAH to reduce the size of genitals. This is controversial as it is likely to cause sexual dysfunction. However not all intersex surgeries are cosmetic, as some are done for basic urinary function.
In any case, classical CAH is very rare, what is much more common is late-onset CAH. This only becomes apparent at a later date. This is NOT an intersex condition, since it is not manifested at birth, even if it is congenital. The overwhelming majority of the 1.7% figure quoted are cases of late-onset CAH, and the average age at presentation is 24.
Since what we are talking about here is a girl or woman with an excess of testosterone manifesting itself long after birth, which should, uncontroversially, be treated by hormonal medication in order to correct the hormonal imbalance, it is quite wrong to imply that such a person is not in the traditional male/female category.
A related fact is that many adult women have excess testosterone referred to as PCOS, which can cause bearded ladies, etc., the cause of this is not completely clear but essentially oestrogens are directly synthesised via androgens etc. in the ovaries, while enzymes converting to testosterone are also found in other parts of the body, notably fat, so it is possible to end up with a high testosterone level. Women with ovarian cancers unsurprisingly can end up with high testosterone levels as well, though nothing like Caster Semenya's level.
PCOS/ovarian cancer are in no sense 'not female', since they express themselves in adult women. There are however cases of women with PCOS/high testosterone (which as implied is an adult/post-pubescent issue) who say that their gender identity is transmale.
There is no evidence for hormonal disorders such as CAH and PCOS being of any benefit to women in sporting terms.
There are lots of other disorders of sexual development, i.e. cases where people have different genes or chromosomes in their sexual makeup. These are things like having only an X chromosome, XXY chromosomes, XXYY chromosomes, and so on. None of these are in any sense 'not male' or 'not female', any more than someone with Down's syndrome is not male or not female as a result of an extra 21st chromosome. Such chromosomal disorders are actually quite straight forward - if you have any Y chromosome, you are male, and if you do not have any Y chromosome you are female.
That is because foetal development has a female default - if the gene, found on the Y chromosome, SRY, that is the switch for male development is not present, then the foetus will continue on the female pathway.
The process of spermatogenesis is similar to that of oogenesis in that you have splitting and rejoining of chromosomal pairs, i.e. 'identical' chromosomes. BUT whereas women have two Xes, which crossover with each other perfectly, men have an X and a Y, and X is much longer than Y, so they do not crossover.
Despite this there is a small region that is common to both X and Y, so this genetic material, at least, can be swapped over, and it just happens that the SRY gene is immediately adjacent to this region on the Y chromosome. So when the sperm are formed, there is a tiny possibility that the SRY gene ends up in an X sperm, rather than a Y sperm. When that X sperm meets the egg (which is X, obviously), then you have XX with an SRY gene.
This will result in an XX male, who has a working penis.
This is considered 'intersex' in the true sense in that it represents a difference between the chromosomal sex and phenotypic sex (i.e. the genitals and other sexual characteristics)
The opposite of this of course is where you have XY with no SRY gene, for similar reasons, and this will result in a female phenotype at birth. XY,SRY- is slightly worse than XX,SRY+ in that XX,SRY+ has male gonads producing some testosterone, while XY,SRY- has neutran gonads, which produce neither T nor E.
An XY female due to SRY- (there are other genes involved in sex determination found on other chromosomes that can also fail resulting in a similar outcome) will take oestrogen at puberty and again this is just common sense because you have someone with a full set of female genitalia including cervix, uterus, vagina, etc.
The other major true intersex condition is complete androgen insensitivity. This is quite different from XY SRY-, because the presence of SRY causes anti-Mullerian hormone (which is not a steroid) to be expressed, regressing the Mullerian duct, which would otherwise develop into the internal parts of the female anatomy (everything above the outer part of the vagina). In the case of CAIS, it is the genetic failure of the androgen receptor which results in a body which cannot process androgens, and whose external genitals will not be virilised, appearing female.
The case of CAIS is again a difference between phenotype and genotype, but it's not 'intersex as a sex': people with CAIS appear female, though again they should take oestrogen at puberty.
There are other cases sometimes referred to as 'intersex' - there are various forms of vaginal agenesis where the top part of the vagina does not develop. This may include all the Mullerian structures, i.e. no womb, etc. However a woman with missing Mullieran structures still has a vagina, ovaries, breasts, normal female oestrogen, no testes, and she does not appear anything other than female.
In no sense is here sex 'intersex', she is quite simply and unequivocally female, just as an infertile woman is.
There are other conditions most obviously so-called pseudohermaphroditism, where people have both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue. This is extremely rare and in no case do humans produce both sperm and eggs, however depending on specific, extremely rare conditions it may be genuinely difficult to determine whether an individual should be raised as male or female. Such cases are vanishingly rare, however.
As with Semenya et al it is quite possible for children to be born with ambiguous genitalia, but that does not make them 'not male' necessarily - if you identified that a child had 5-ARD2 at birth then you would raise them male, just as you would if they were born with normal male genitalia.
The difficulty can be to an extent if screening is not done at birth - there was a rather dubious doctor who did research on children with pseudohermaphroditism, and he believed that gender was purely socially assigned.
When he came across a baby who had had his penis chopped off in a circumcision accident, he was delighted and set about affirming this child as female. Unfortunately this involved sex games with his twin brother, and both children met an early death by suicide and alcoholism respectively. But anyway, the bad Dr., Dr. Money, was not completely wrong, in that if you raise a child as female despite biology which suggests they should be raised male (or vice versa), then that is going to influence their gender identity. So you can have the situation where you have people who are raised as female, and are perhaps 'confused' (reporting later that they preferred taking part in 'boy activities', etc.), as with Erika Schinegger, later Erik, who was disqualified from women's skiing in 1967 after he was found to have a DSD that we would today assign as male. He subsequently had surgery, fathered children and gave his gold medal to the second-place candidate. In other words, while Erika/Erik, as Mary/Mark Weston was perhaps confused while growing up as to why he (then she) felt attraction to women, etc., the penny never dropped for them that they had internal testes, until it was discovered medically.
Anyway, the best estimate for 'true intersex' I have seen is 0.018%. This is the 1.7%, minus the cases such as X, XXYY, XXY, etc. chromosomes. (none of which result in a different phenotype to the standard XX and XY), the missing Mullerian structures (female), and the late-onset CAH (which in men is obviously not even a DSD, as male T is already high).
It should be made clear that intersex children are raised always as either male or female - there is no 'intersex' or 'non-binary' gender. To the extent that 'non-binary' is a thing, it seems to refer to adults who do not wish to comply with sex-based stereotypes.
This is someone who was born a male, went through puberty as a male, trained and raced as a male. At a later date identified as a female and transitioned
male and female are sex determinations. A human can't change from being male to female.
Just to try and counteract the posts above
https://babylonbee.com/news/motorcycle-that-identifies-as-bicycle-sets-world-cycling-record?fbclid=IwAR3DXds1S2clYsV3j_q9GEqwiZYdEP8gowfHCuO8_K85RhgeOo2QVYFdI8A
LOL - I was just about to post that 😁
Re that case above ^^. Cricket allows men to simply "self-declare" with no limit on testosterone levels unless you're playing in national competition.
Quite apart from it being unfair in a sporting context, I do wonder what the biological women think of their changing rooms and showers being used by, essentially, biological men.
I think the whole transgender policy needs an urgent overhaul before women are sitting on the bench watching their sport being played by "men".
Max needs a hard kick in the balls and told to **** off otherwise it rips the piss out of genuine female players trying to compete, and those that gave the award need to **** off as well
I think the whole transgender policy needs an urgent overhaul before women are sitting on the bench watching their sport being played by “men”.
There does seem to be an unusual level of agreement here and in the wider world that it needs a bit of common sense applied.
I think it will happen, but as I said previously on this thread - it will likely be awkward and unpleasant getting there.
Re that case above
When he plays for the Chesham 2nd XI men's team, he averages 13.1
When she plays for Kent women's county team, she averages 104.8
Everyone involved in making that decision should be ashamed.
I have been absolutely heartened to see such a strong support for women’s sport on this thread. It is so hard to women to to defend women only sport categories, changing rooms, other spaces etc without being branded ‘transphobic’. We need the support of men to do so.
I believe that everyone has the right to live as they please, free from persecution, people should dress how they like, be called whatever name and pronoun they like etc and do so without prejudice. What they don’t have the right to do, is erode women’s rights and deny biological reality.
I also hate the conflation of gender/sex and find the trans agenda dangerously pushes harmful gender steryotyoes such that you can’t be a girl that likes climbing trees and football... you must be really a boy!
There are undeniable physical advantages to being born male and going through male puberty.
It is almost a universally accepted true that that separating male and female sports categories on the basis of sex is a good thing.
M>F trans athletes have no place competing in female category sports. Hurt feelings are not more important than integrity.
Taking hormone treatment to bring down male testosterone levels as an adult still isn’t enough to ‘become female’ given the physical advantages of male puberty.
Everyone should compete in the category for which sex they were born as.
The mental gymnastics that people go through to justify why it’s ok for a person born a man to compete against women based on this persons *feeling* of feeling like a women, is quite frankly, ludicrous.
this persons *feeling* of feeling like a women, is quite frankly, ludicrous.
I am not sure it is so simple. I dont think unless you fall into that category you are able to understand it fully. I know its something I dont have any real frame of reference for but I think its a tad stronger than "feeling".
Overall it is a horrendously complex area which I am really glad I dont have to try and understand fully and make decisions which will impact others.
Thanks for those really informative posts from thelawnet
. I am going to have to read them several times to get the full thing
To me the whole thing is horrendously complex and also two different things get conflated. those with developmental abnormalities and those without who identify as other than their genetic sex. the two are very different and should be treated differently
Semanya I feel really sorry for. The sporting bodies have made a real mess of it and made it look like they are singling her out rather than really trying to address the general issues.
thelawnet
can you confirm? I have read that women with development oddities like Semanya are hundreds of times more prevalent in womens sport than in the general population? Ie significant numbers of female atheletes are actually getting benefit from raised testosterone levels
I have been absolutely heartened to see such a strong support for women’s sport on this thread. It is so hard to women to to defend women only sport categories, changing rooms, other spaces etc without being branded ‘transphobic’. We need the support of men to do so.
I think many men have resisted becoming embroiled in this on the basis that "it doesn't concern us" and I also think it has taken sporting issues to finally make men realise some of what is at stake here. There has certainly been a bit of a sea-change on this (mostly male) forum since the last time this topic was discussed too.
I've just read this thread, trying to think of a way of expressing my own thoughts on the matter, and I find myself agreeing almost completely with Kittyr
I believe that everyone has the right to live as they please, free from persecution, people should dress how they like, be called whatever name and pronoun they like etc and do so without prejudice. What they don’t have the right to do, is erode women’s rights and deny biological reality.
I also hate the conflation of gender/sex and find the trans agenda dangerously pushes harmful gender steryotyoes such that you can’t be a girl that likes climbing trees and football… you must be really a boy!
That last part is where I think "we" have collectively lost our minds on this debate - there seems to be a new popular belief emerging that if you are a female that likes things that society dictates are for men..... then maybe you have something wrong with you, you should take a truckload of supplements and have everyone treat you as an exception. You can love women, wear trousers, cut your hair short, play videogames, ride motorbikes, have tatoos, drink pints etc etc.... and still be a woman. And vice-versa for men. It's our labeling of those things as gender-specific that is the problem. All those things are just societal norms - and is exactly what we should be putting in the bin.
Instead, we are binning-off the useful distinctions between male and female, in favour of the useless ones.
There has certainly been a bit of a sea-change on this (mostly male) forum since the last time this topic was discussed too.
Yes remember the last time when hetero men on here who said they wouldn't like the idea of having sex with another man (albeit one who has had hormones and surgery to look like a woman), were roundly condemned and labelled something unpleasant.
Yes remember the last time when hetero men on here who said they wouldn’t like the idea of having sex with another man (albeit one who has had hormones and surgery to look like a woman), were roundly condemned and labelled something unpleasant.
That's less about transphobia and more to do with an individual's sexual preferences surely? At least that's consensual - if an individual (male or female or "other") and a trans person want to have sex then what two consenting adults get up to in private is their business alone.
The idea of a sports governing body saying to a female team, "we accept men who identify as women in the sport and that means spectators, fans and all other players need to accept them on the field and you need to accept them in your showers" is rather different and labelling anyone who is uncomfortable with that as "transphobic" is not at all helpful.
I'm sure the ECB are looking forward to the day Maxine is selected for the national team.
I believe most people are fairly reasonable about their attitudes to gender and sport. Where there is apparently no benefit (shooting for example) it’s a flat playing field and men will regularly be beaten by women. Where efforts of endurance are involved, it seems clear that there are benefits of having passed through puberty.
Being 6’4” might convey a few advantages for a bowler, and taking a third of the team’s wickets in a season might seem to back that up. The percentage of females of that height is very small. And for the same height they will have proportionately less muscle.
That’s less about transphobia and more to do with an individual’s sexual preferences surely?
If you'd been following the debate at all you'd realise that sensible notion has already been deemed transphobic by the shouty trans folk. There is now a new LGB Alliance group trying to stand up for folk to have the right to a sexual preference. Some of the debate is particularly poisonous and threats of violence towards Women's Rights groups are becoming increasingly common.
Some of the debate is particularly poisonous and threats of violence towards Women’s Rights groups are becoming increasingly common.
Further bolstering the idea that some clever surgery and hormones do not take the man out of the woman they believe they have been transformed into. I don't remember the feminists and lesbians being awful to people they disagreed with in the 70/80's. There is a correlation here.
Some well worded comments from the UCI there.
Earlier this month, experts from relevant disciplinary fields, representatives of the International Paralympic Committee, the International Tennis Federation, World Rowing, the International Golf Federation, and the International Association of Athletics Federations, and cis and trans athlete representatives had an initial meeting. After a day of presentations and discussions, the IIAF group agreed on the following:
• They remain committed to fair and equal opportunity for female athletes
• The inclusion of trans women within the female category should be promoted with meaningful eligibility standards, provided it does not create intolerable unfairness
• Rules intended to accommodate trans athletes should be sports-specific and designed by the relevant international federation.
• Testosterone is the primary known driver of the performance gap between males and females and serum Testosterone is regarded as an acceptable proxy to distinguish male from female athletes.
• If a federation decides to use serum Testosterone for this purpose, it should adopt a fixed threshold at or below 5nmol/L for eligibility for the female category.
• More research is needed on this issue and should be encouraged by sports federations.The full report of the initial meeting can be found here.
Seems to ignore the elephant in the room - lived experience as the other gender. Especially male to female trans. I wonder how much is known about if puberty as a man confers benefits that reducing testosterone levels later will not reverse?
I wonder how much is known about if puberty as a man confers benefits that reducing testosterone levels later will not reverse?
Lots. The benefits conferred by male puberty are Irreversible.
Look up Hannah Mouncey, Australian handball player, and imagine your daughter going up against him/her. You'd be a nervous wreck and quite probably to campaigning that trans athletes are not allowed in the women's game.
Lots. The benefits conferred by male puberty are Irreversible.
well this is what I was implying, but I don't know the research, however the examples of McKinnon, the cricketer and that handball player are a bit damning (especially the handball player, very much a bloke).
How long will it be before xx women break away and start an xx league in various sports? Then they will sue to get the title 'Woman' back from the trans movement.
The UCI and the IOC have scientists who have constantly been adjusting the rules of a living document that determines whether or not someone can compete in a certain category.
This person has jumped through every hoop required. That is the end of it.
So until you are a person advising that council your opinion counts for exactly the square root of **** all.
your opinion counts for exactly the square root of **** all.
As has always been the case in most things. So what?
Jesus christ that Australian handball player looks a monster! 6ft 2 and 100kg! She'd hurt men let alone women!
Seems to ignore the elephant in the room – lived experience as the other gender.
That is the real problem area. Nobody wants to go too far too quickly until there is a definite feeling that everyone on the governing bodies across all sports is in agreement. And then of course it has to get through human rights groups.
The problem with discussions around this is that any solution is lose / lose.
Let those who are intersex or havechanged sex compete in womens sport its unfair on the rest, deny them the right to compete its unfair on them especially those like Semanya
I really really cannot see any fair solution
Greater good of the greater number?
Hmmmmmmmmm
If one person can do it all can do it? ( IIRC thats another tenet of utilitarianism)
Let those who are intersex or havechanged sex compete in womens sport its unfair on the rest, deny them the right to compete its unfair on them especially those like Semanya
You're conflating intersex people with folk who change their gender (you can't change sex). The solution may not apply to both groups. Transexual athletes are free to compete in the relevant category according to their sex.
Good point
Please don't conflate the Semenya situation with someone who has decided they'd like to be a woman now. Oh, but still play men's cricket when they feel like it. Or someone who decides to race against women having lived through, and gained all the advantages of, male puberty.
They are wholly different situations.
Surely the solution is to poll the people who this actually affects - their fellow competitors.
fellow competitors
And if they say no, they're screamed at for being transphobic.
Haven't some XX competirors pulled out of comps with xy m>f competitor's? That gives some idea of how the other competitors feel.