Caster Semenya could be forced to undertake hormone therapy for future Olympics

[ttaskmaster]

They arent all 'Olympic' athletes? And the samples were taken in 2014 from what i can ascertain

"Endocrine profiles have been measured on blood samples obtained immediately post-competition from 693 elite athletes from 15 Olympic Sports competing at National or International level"
These were supposedly taken at major competitive events (one source states that the original samples were drawn at the 2012 Olympics) and if they're the elite athletes in olympic sports, that's pretty much the top of the game. I would therefore expect to see all of these top performers with massive testosterone levels, if testosterone is what makes them so good. Instead, we see athletes with surprisingly low levels, seemingly in 25% of men and abnormally high in about 16% of women, with an overlap between sexes in the lower-mid range around the 5-10nmol range.

bear in mind the samples were anonymous, they have no idea where the participants of the study had finished in their chosen event, nor could they rule out the possibility of doping

"The endocrine part of the data can be shared on an anonymous basis. However, the performance part of the data which is linked to the endocrine part cannot be shared since it could allow individuals to be identified and constitutes a breach of confidentiality"
From the 2127 observations. Presumably similar data protection applies across all studies, then?

Also given the date of the study, it's entirely possible the female athletes with abnormally high testosterone levels were intersex - I read somewhere (think it was in one of the studies referenced) that the number of intersex female athletes is abnormally high when compared to the 'normal' population.

I thought the results of four suspected-intersex participants had been deliberately excluded from the analysis.
And yes, I also had read that a lot of elite athletes have been 'outed' as, or discovered to be, intersex... Often with this being the first they'd heard of it.

Either way,
"However, the most distinctive criterion in differentiating between male and female athletes was their LBM, as the research established that females have 85 per cent of the LBM of males. Researchers believe that these findings are sufficient to account for ‘observed differences in strength and aerobic performance’ between male and female athletes, ‘without the need to hypothesize that performance is in any way determined by the differences in testosterone levels’. The researchers additionally suggest that the findings ‘negate completely the hypothesis concerning testosterone levels proposed by IAAF/IOC’. The authors conclude that hormonal profiles of elite athletes differ from the usual reference range, and that ‘the IOC definition of a woman as one who has a normal testosterone level is untenable’"

The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

There's a huge difference between someone that's trans and someone that's intersex is there not? Specifically, someone that falls under the 46 XY DSD category, pretty disingenuous to label them all under the same umbrella imo.

Absolutely, and that's why I take issue with those who have voluntarily modified themselves being allowed to compete, while those who have done nothing except exist as nature made them are prohibited.
That seems the complete opposite of the fairness they're on about.

It's in reference material of the study you linked:

Serum androgen levels and their relation to performance in track and field: mass spectrometry results from 2127 observations in male and female elite athletes | British Journal of Sports Medicine

Conclusion: Female athletes with high fT levels have a significant competitive advantage over those with low fT in 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw, and pole vault.

These 2127 observations - How many individual athletes is that, and what's the male/female split?

Also, not to be picky, but is this the one study (aka the Daegu Study) that the IAAF specifically commissioned and came back with as their sole supporting evidence for the second hearing?
AFAIK, the Daegu study sample excluded 10 women, 5 due to doping and the other 5 due to DSD conditions anyway...

"Results demonstrated that median testosterone levels among elite female athletes were similar to those of non-athlete healthy young females (0.69 nmol/L median found in sampled athletes), with the 99th percentile calculated at 3.08 nmol/L. Out of 839 women tested, 9 had testosterone levels greater than 3 nmol/L, and 3 women had levels above 10 nmol/L. Despite the plausible speculation that high-level athlete women would demonstrate higher testosterone levels than their non-athlete counterparts, this hypothesis was not confirmed in the data".
Same link as above.

So despite it being criticized as a circular reinforcement of 'normal' based on studying only what they considered to be 'normal', by excluding the 5 DSD athletes, it still doesn't prove the relationship between testosterone and performance.

"When compared with the lowest female fT tertile, women with the highest fT tertile performed significantly (p<0.05) better in 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw, and pole vault with margins of 2.73%, 2.78%, 1.78%, 4.53%, and 2.94%, respectively. Such a pattern was not found in any of the male athletic events"
So the top 30-odd percent of women perform a couple of percent better than the bottom third, but not much data across each tertile and absolutely nothing even shown for the testosterone-laden male performances at all.

All I ultimately take from this is that there are almost no studies yet that definitively testosterone level provides an advantage, beyond the presumtions and assumptions in a pair of half-assed studies, while various medical specialists continue to refute the theory - Hence the IAAF's assertion is flawed science.

It was then the IAAF changed tact and introduced the regulations around DSD, which included reducing testosterone levels of athletes identifying as women to 5nmol/L (from 10) which is still magnitudes higher than a 'normal' woman who come in under 2nmol/L.

'Normal' woman, yes, but seemingly not always an elite-level athletic woman, especially depending which of the only two studies you favour, and then only applicable to certain "women" with certain conditions and then only in certain events....
It's pretty janky discrimination...

There's no tangent here just directly addressing what you said:

You did nothing of the sort.
I was talking about several individuals and the various different biological sexes dictated to them. You then made it all about Caster Semenya 'knowing fulll well what she is', which is another example of that same dictation but off on a tangent to what I was originally discussing.

They are allowed to compete as they're born and no one is deciding their identity for them. They can freely compete in the men's event but if, as biological males, they want to compete in the women's event then they have obvious physical differences a major one being testosterone.

Fine - Remove those male athletes with t-levels lower than 10nmol and especially the 5nmol from the male events, as they're clearly below the 10nmol threshold for the male category, based on their "obvious differences" in testosterone level....They have female levels, so can compete in the womens' events.
Yes, they have physical differences, but the regulations only care about current testosterone levels, not what might have happened as a result of that testosterone years ago during their long-since-ended puberty....

Are you unaware of things like doping where people use testosterone to seek an unfair advantage?

I am aware, as you will be from reading this thread, that testosterone doping does provide a temporary boost to performance.
But I'm also aware, as you also will be from reading this same thread, that natural testosterone does not work the same way, and that anti-doping tests can reliably show the difference...

Do you think anyone should be able to compete in the women's event or do you think that there shouldn't even be separate men's and women's events since you're apparently in denial of testosterone having an impact here?

Why are you asking this? You already know what my position on that is, as I've stated it numerous times.
There is no "in denial", there's just no reliable proof and so I reject your assertion... and I'm STILL waiting for you to provide your own proof, as I have been since the previous thread.

 

[Jokester]

Looks like a sound reason to prevent men from competing in women’s sport regardless of testosterone levels on the day.

 

[PlacidCasual]

I am aware, as you will be from reading this thread, that testosterone doping does provide a temporary boost to performance.
But I'm also aware, as you also will be from reading this same thread, that natural testosterone does not work the same way, and that anti-doping tests can reliably show the difference...

Sharon Davies and Petra Schneider can answer that one for you. If you are taking testosterone and it gives you some of the advanatages of male puberty it's more than a temporary performance boost.

In this case given that Caster has testes and went through male puberty he got all the benefits bigger lung capacity, larger heart, stronger bones and muscles. These benefits don't just vanish epecially not if you're training to maintain them.

 

[dowie]

Fine - Remove those male athletes with t-levels lower than 10nmol and especially the 5nmol from the male events, as they're clearly below the 10nmol threshold for the male category, based on their "obvious differences" in testosterone level....They have female levels, so can compete in the womens' events.
Yes, they have physical differences, but the regulations only care about current testosterone levels, not what might have happened as a result of that testosterone years ago during their long-since-ended puberty....

Why the whataboutery/deflection? If low T men are able to compete then what's the issue? Are you aware of any low T men winning medals?

Why are you asking this? You already know what my position on that is, as I've stated it numerous times.
There is no "in denial", there's just no reliable proof and so I reject your assertion... and I'm STILL waiting for you to provide your own proof, as I have been since the previous thread.

Sorry you're just deflecting here, I'm asking because you sperge out frequently and deflect with stuff like the previous bit quoted. Why not address the issue, if you do think there should be separate men's and women's events then what's your issue here?

If someone is biologically male IMO they should be in the men's event or a suitable disabled/paralympic event for their condition - does that sound reasonable? If not then why not?

Are you not able to see why having males (save for some rare exceptions) compete in the event for females is unfair?

You previously linked to this article right?

The complicated truth about testosterone’s effect on athletic performance

The debate over whether to allow female athletes with high testosterone to compete with other women has been heated, but not backed by a lot of science. That's because there simply isn't much out there, though that's not to say we can't draw some important conclusions from what we do know.

www.popsci.com

If you give a person testosterone, society considers it a performance enhancer. If you naturally have lots of the hormone, though, it’s a competitive advantage—if you’re a man. But if you’re a woman, at least according to some of the biggest sports associations in the world, it’s just plain unfair.

Female athletes like champion sprinters Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand have had to fight in recent years for their right to compete as women because their natural testosterone levels are far higher than the average woman’s.

See if you can spot the bait and switch... the problem is that in terms of biology, these people are "men" or biological males and that article concedes in the very first line that: "it’s a competitive advantage—if you’re a man" which is nothing to do with identity in that context but biology.

I think that's part of the root of your hangups here, you got confused previously with references to sex and gender and now you're getting confused re: claims about testosterone and female athletes when this concerns biological males.

This is pretty well established as an advantage for biological males:

Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance

Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The strongest justification for sex classification in elite sports is that after puberty men produce 20 times more testosterone than women (4–7), resulting in circulating testosterone concentrations 15-fold higher than in children or women of any age. Age-grade competitive sporting records show no sex differences prior to puberty, whereas from the age of male puberty onward there is a strong and ongoing male advantage (8). The striking male postpubertal increase in circulating testosterone provides a major, ongoing, cumulative, and durable physical advantage in sporting contests by creating larger and stronger bones, greater muscle mass and strength, and higher circulating hemoglobin as well as possible psychological (behavioral) differences. In concert, these render women, on average, unable to compete effectively against men in power-based or endurance-based sports.

It seems your arguments boil down to a couple of things, your personal confusion over sex and gender. The presence of other factors muddling things in your mind, that limiting testosterone doesn't negate other advantages developed as a result of male puberty for example... but that those other factors exist doesn't negate that testosterone clearly has an impact on performance.

 

[C Kent]

"Endocrine profiles have been measured on blood samples obtained immediately post-competition from 693 elite athletes from 15 Olympic Sports competing at National or International level"

These were supposedly taken at major competitive events (one source states that the original samples were drawn at the 2012 Olympics) and if they're the elite athletes in olympic sports, that's pretty much the top of the game.

Mind linking that source as from what I can tell the participants of the study were drawn from a range of competitions both national and international - if they were all from the 2012 Olympics they wouldn't need the 'national competition' disclaimer?

I would therefore expect to see all of these top performers with massive testosterone levels, if testosterone is what makes them so good. Instead, we see athletes with surprisingly low levels, seemingly in 25% of men and abnormally high in about 16% of women, with an overlap between sexes in the lower-mid range around the 5-10nmol range.

"The endocrine part of the data can be shared on an anonymous basis. However, the performance part of the data which is linked to the endocrine part cannot be shared since it could allow individuals to be identified and constitutes a breach of confidentiality"
From the 2127 observations. Presumably similar data protection applies across all studies, then?

I thought the results of four suspected-intersex participants had been deliberately excluded from the analysis.
And yes, I also had read that a lot of elite athletes have been 'outed' as, or discovered to be, intersex... Often with this being the first they'd heard of it.

I think you are conflating different studies no? The one you linked with the 693 participants had 4 people excluded due to: "Three participants were excluded as there was only 1 volunteer from each sport (women Powerlifting, Marathon and Canoeing) and one man was excluded as his thyroid profile showed him to be markedly hyperthyroid (high fT3 and suppressed TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone)) leaving 689 individuals for the current analysis."

Either way,
"However, the most distinctive criterion in differentiating between male and female athletes was their LBM, as the research established that females have 85 per cent of the LBM of males. Researchers believe that these findings are sufficient to account for ‘observed differences in strength and aerobic performance’ between male and female athletes, ‘without the need to hypothesize that performance is in any way determined by the differences in testosterone levels’. The researchers additionally suggest that the findings ‘negate completely the hypothesis concerning testosterone levels proposed by IAAF/IOC’. The authors conclude that hormonal profiles of elite athletes differ from the usual reference range, and that ‘the IOC definition of a woman as one who has a normal testosterone level is untenable’"

The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yes this is a study that was done on the original premise by the iaaf/ioc, the one that cas tossed regarding Hyperandrogenism Regulations, and not the revised DSD regs. I don't believe there's been any studies commissioned post 2018 that specifically look at testosterone levels in elite athletes. I think the criteria/controls of the older studies would be flawed if they are taking samples directly post competition due to testosterone levels being directly influenced by hormones produced by the body after it has been placed under stress.

These 2127 observations - How many individual athletes is that, and what's the male/female split?

I'm not entirely sure as it's behind a pay wall, but it appears over 1100 female athletes.

Also, not to be picky, but is this the one study (aka the Daegu Study) that the IAAF specifically commissioned and came back with as their sole supporting evidence for the second hearing?
AFAIK, the Daegu study sample excluded 10 women, 5 due to doping and the other 5 due to DSD conditions anyway...

No?

"Results demonstrated that median testosterone levels among elite female athletes were similar to those of non-athlete healthy young females (0.69 nmol/L median found in sampled athletes), with the 99th percentile calculated at 3.08 nmol/L. Out of 839 women tested, 9 had testosterone levels greater than 3 nmol/L, and 3 women had levels above 10 nmol/L. Despite the plausible speculation that high-level athlete women would demonstrate higher testosterone levels than their non-athlete counterparts, this hypothesis was not confirmed in the data".
Same link as above.

So despite it being criticized as a circular reinforcement of 'normal' based on studying only what they considered to be 'normal', by excluding the 5 DSD athletes, it still doesn't prove the relationship between testosterone and performance.

"When compared with the lowest female fT tertile, women with the highest fT tertile performed significantly (p<0.05) better in 400 m, 400 m hurdles, 800 m, hammer throw, and pole vault with margins of 2.73%, 2.78%, 1.78%, 4.53%, and 2.94%, respectively. Such a pattern was not found in any of the male athletic events"
So the top 30-odd percent of women perform a couple of percent better than the bottom third, but not much data across each tertile and absolutely nothing even shown for the testosterone-laden male performances at all.

All I ultimately take from this is that there are almost no studies yet that definitively testosterone level provides an advantage, beyond the presumtions and assumptions in a pair of half-assed studies, while various medical specialists continue to refute the theory - Hence the IAAF's assertion is flawed science.

'Normal' woman, yes, but seemingly not always an elite-level athletic woman, especially depending which of the only two studies you favour, and then only applicable to certain "women" with certain conditions and then only in certain

Well again, the study you are taking as gospel isn't a study into the effectiveness of testosterone in athletes though, the testosterone element is one tiny portion of the larger study, and as noted above would ultimately be flawed due to the controls in place would it not?

It's pretty janky discrimination...

yes, but the iaaf/ioc freely admit it's discriminatory. That discrimination is ultimately due to not allowing biological males to participate in female events - it's irrelevant if someone id's as a woman/female, be they trans or intersex, if they have gone through puberty having benefited from a male biological makeup. The fairness as you put it is allowing women to be able to compete against the same sex. I assume you agree that a biological male has inherent physical advantages over a biological female, and one element of that advantage is a higher testostrone level at the development stage - testosterone that impacts various different physiological traits, be it muscle growth, muscle recovery etc amongst other hormones. Afterall someone's sex is a protected characteristic is it not.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Looks like a sound reason to prevent men from competing in women’s sport regardless of testosterone levels on the day.

YES!!!!!

Sharon Davies and Petra Schneider can answer that one for you. If you are taking testosterone and it gives you some of the advanatages of male puberty it's more than a temporary performance boost.

In this case given that Caster has testes and went through male puberty he got all the benefits bigger lung capacity, larger heart, stronger bones and muscles. These benefits don't just vanish epecially not if you're training to maintain them.

Please phone those individuals and aks them to post here.
Meanwhile, exogenous testosterone does not affect the body in the same was as endogenous testosterone. exT is a temporary boost and only stays in your system for a few days, so you have to keep taking it to maintain the performance effects. By contrast, enT is permanent and the effects are ongoing.

As for performance benefits of puberty, that's not directly tied to testosterone level, as shown by the number of elite level male athletes whose levels are below the upper female limit. Testosterone just decides which way your body will develop, and is not an exclusively male thing - Everyone has it.
The issue is simply with the male body vs the female body, and the presumed advantages of the former in the case of female-presenting intersex athletes. Testosterone levels at any given moment won't change what puberty has already done.

Mind linking that source as from what I can tell the participants of the study were drawn from a range of competitions both national and international - if they were all from the 2012 Olympics they wouldn't need the 'national competition' disclaimer?

"One study, often referred to as GH-2000, was a ‘spin-off’ from a project designed to trace abuse of growth hormone in sport. By the end of the original experiment (conducted in 2012 during the London Olympics), there was sufficient serum for the study of hormonal profiles of 693 elite athletes".

The testosterone rule—constructing fairness in professional sport

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Others say the samples were drawn at the IAAF's 2011 World Athletics Championships - "Alongside the Olympic Games, they represent the highest level championships of senior international outdoor athletics competition for track and field athletics globally, including marathon running and race walking".

Either way, top end elite athletes, though.

I think you are conflating different studies no?

More likely one of the articles discussing the studies mixing up the details. There's a fair bit of that, even in professional ones.

I don't believe there's been any studies commissioned post 2018 that specifically look at testosterone levels in elite athletes. I think the criteria/controls of the older studies would be flawed if they are taking samples directly post competition due to testosterone levels being directly influenced by hormones produced by the body after it has been placed under stress.

So the Daegu was tried and rejected in the initial Dutee Chand case, and then the IAAF came back with Berman-Garnier's 2127 Observations that gave rise to the DSD Regulations?

"In our study, subjects with disorders of sex development including androgen insensitivity and congenital adrenal hyperplasia were excluded"

Serum androgen levels are positively correlated with athletic performance and competition results in elite female athletes | British Journal of Sports Medicine

I also found this one quite interesting:

Testosterone limits for female athletes based on 'flawed' research

New rules governing international track and field competitions would require some women to medically reduce their testosterone levels to compete. A new study suggests the regulations are rooted in flawed science.

www.sciencedaily.com

But even more interesting was the variation in responses from some experts:

expert reaction to ruling on caster semenya appeal regarding athletes with differences of sex development and testosterone levels | Science Media Centre

Well again, the study you are taking as gospel isn't a study into the effectiveness of testosterone in athletes though, the testosterone element is one tiny portion of the larger study, and as noted above would ultimately be flawed due to the controls in place would it not?

I'm looking at both studies, neither of which seem to specifically claim confirmatory results, and nor does the subsequent 2127 Observations study.
And yes, flawed for several reasons, as argued by various peers and other writers.

I assume you agree that a biological male has inherent physical advantages over a biological female, and one element of that advantage is a higher testostrone level at the development stage - testosterone that impacts various different physiological traits, be it muscle growth, muscle recovery etc amongst other hormones. Afterall someone's sex is a protected characteristic is it not.

I partially agree with the bolded bit, but with caveats such as the likes of Dutee Chand who is genetically male, but externally presents as physically female and is allowed to compete as one, due to the physiological behaviour of her physical features. Similarly, elite male athletes who still compete against other men in spite of very low testosterone levels, suggesting that high testosterone is not advantageous.

I understand that the presence of testosterone triggers the development, but question whether higher levels of it result in any specific advantages - Indeed, studies suggest that higher testosterone at the developmental stage actually stunts growth and causes some other problems (high blood pressure, high cholesterol, heart damage, weight gain, fluid retention) that are not conducive to elite athleticism.

Similarly, PCOS is generally asserted to occur from high levels of testosterone. Although PCOS appears more prevalent in elite athletes than the general populace, the commonly PCOS-afflicted woman is fat, hairy, has bad skin conditions and is generally more fatigued than would normally be expected. Not exactly what you'd consider an athletic build.

So again, it comes down to either establishing how much of an impact ongoing testosterone levels specifically have had on any targeted individual, and whether they continue to provide an advantage... or some other method of discerning whether their physical and physiological form is a) actually advantageous, b) a result of dishonesty or similarly deliberate intent c) so great that it is unfair.

Why the whataboutery/deflection? If low T men are able to compete then what's the issue? Are you aware of any low T men winning medals?

This is not "whataboutery" or "deflection". This is defining someone's sex category based entirely on testosterone levels.
Unsurprisingly, for the reasons discussed above, no-one knows the t-levels of the medal winners, as that data is (supposedly) kept confidential.

If someone is biologically male IMO they should be in the men's event or a suitable disabled/paralympic event for their condition - does that sound reasonable? If not then why not?
Are you not able to see why having males (save for some rare exceptions) compete in the event for females is unfair?

The issues are:
1/. The exceptions are defined by regulations based on the flawed science of very limited exploratory studies, which do not support the assertions and presumptions on which the exceptions are made.
2/. The ethical and moral issue of taking someone who has been told all her life by medical professionals that she's female, and then effectively ending her career by publicly proclaiming her to be a bloke and/or insisting on questionable modifications that risk damaging her health*.

The rest is already discussed above.

* - https://www.wma.net/news-post/wma-u...ent-iaaf-rules-on-classifying-women-athletes/

See if you can spot the bait and switch... the problem is that in terms of biology, these people are "men" or biological males and that article concedes in the very first line that: "it’s a competitive advantage—if you’re a man" which is nothing to do with identity in that context but biology.
I think that's part of the root of your hangups here, you got confused previously with references to sex and gender.

Then think again. I am very well versed with the differences between sex and gender identities. There is no confusion.
And as already stated, as far as the medical argument goes, I am only concerned with the genetic and biological definitions of sex. The ethical issue comes from every doctor (again, medical) these "women" (in quotes for your benefit) have ever seen have seemingly proclaimed their sex to be female, right up until a 'routine drugs/anti-doping test' comes back with some other doctor going, "Hey, you're a bloke, now".

now you're getting confused re: claims about testosterone and female athletes when this concerns biological males.
This is pretty well established as an advantage for biological males:

Firstly, the relationship between testosterone and athletic performance is widely questioned, to the point where several specialists even refer to it merely as a "theory".
Secondly, we're talking about genetic males with intersex conditions, typically those undervirilised, meaning that they're not getting the full male advantage, in one way or another. Male Lite, you might say.

But what is this advantage, exactly?

"CAS accepted that the main driver of the marked sex difference in sport performance (10-12% on average) is the physical advantages conferred by having testosterone levels in the male range (7.7 - 29.4 nmol/L in blood) rather than the normal female range (06 - 1.68 nmol/L) "

IAAF publishes briefing notes and Q&A on Female Eligibility Regulations | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision upholding IAAF Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)

worldathletics.org

Semenya's performances are gernerally asserted to be only 2% better than most of the female athletes against which she was competing. Where's her biological male advantage from all that jet-fuel testosterone coursing through her?
As I understand it, she's not always been the fastest in several of her events, either. She might have a measuable advantage, but it hasn't guaranteed a win.

So it seems that her "male puberty advantage" and her "male levels of testosterone" do not confer upon her any performance advantages consistent with even average male levels, and not even the 3% difference between the upper and lower female tertiles identified in the IAAF's own study.

 

[C Kent]

Similarly, PCOS is generally asserted to occur from high levels of testosterone. Although PCOS appears more prevalent in elite athletes than the general populace, the commonly PCOS-afflicted woman is fat, hairy, has bad skin conditions and is generally more fatigued than would normally be expected. Not exactly what you'd consider an athletic build.

I'll have a proper look at the rest of your post later this evening dude, but it's my understanding having worked with someone that suffered from it many years ago that pcos is a hormonal imbalance linked to having abnormally high levels of multiple hormones (not just testosterone) is it not.

 

[dowie]

This is not "whataboutery" or "deflection". This is defining someone's sex category based entirely on testosterone levels.
Unsurprisingly, for the reasons discussed above, no-one knows the t-levels of the medal winners, as that data is (supposedly) kept confidential.

Seems completely irrelevant then despite your claims of it not being whataboutery you don't have any good argument for doing so nor am I aware of any athletes of either sex calling for such testing or indeed any lobbying for this... it's just some insane proposal put forth by you.

The issues are:
1/. The exceptions are defined by regulations based on the flawed science of very limited exploratory studies, which do not support the assertions and presumptions on which the exceptions are made.
2/. The ethical and moral issue of taking someone who has been told all her life by medical professionals that she's female, and then effectively ending her career by publicly proclaiming her to be a bloke and/or insisting on questionable modifications that risk damaging her health*.

When was she told that she was intersex? And what relevance does that have here?

I don't see how that is a good argument for anything re: regulations... someone neglected to tell someone something fundamental about themselves so we should bend the rules for them. You're (possibly) highlighting an issue with medicine in South Africa, that's all, it's not a good basis for bending rules.

"CAS accepted that the main driver of the marked sex difference in sport performance (10-12% on average) is the physical advantages conferred by having testosterone levels in the male range (7.7 - 29.4 nmol/L in blood) rather than the normal female range (06 - 1.68 nmol/L) "

IAAF publishes briefing notes and Q&A on Female Eligibility Regulations | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision upholding IAAF Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)

worldathletics.org

Semenya's performances are gernerally asserted to be only 2% better than most of the female athletes against which she was competing. Where's her biological male advantage from all that jet-fuel testosterone coursing through her?

Again you're highlighting something that doesn't appear to be a contradiction, some general average performance advantage with some specific individual in a specific sport.

The issue is simply that she's a biological male and they have an inherent advantage that doesn't mean that ever biological male will perform (at the very highest level) exactly 10% better than the world's best women in some event.

Essentially you've got someone who would ordinarily be a good amateur club runner if competing as a male being pitted against the worlds best females... and you're querying why she's *only* 2% rather than 10% better?

 

[Jokester]

YES!!!!!

So you would agree that Caster Semenya and other people who identify as female, but are actually male shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport in that case.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'll have a proper look at the rest of your post later this evening dude, but it's my understanding having worked with someone that suffered from it many years ago that pcos is a hormonal imbalance linked to having abnormally high levels of multiple hormones (not just testosterone) is it not.

They haven't precisely nailed the cause, but high testosterone is widely cited as both a cause and a symptom, along with increased luteinising hormone. Other hormones may be lowered, but increased testosterone is usually asserted to be the influential factor.
Other symptoms are also cited as factors that increase the risk of developing PCOS, in individuals that do not already have it from birth.
It's generally rather uncertain, as individuals present with various combinations of genetic and biological symptoms, and the physical and physiological symptom combinations are equally variable.

Seems completely irrelevant then despite your claims of it not being whataboutery you don't have any good argument for doing so nor am I aware of any athletes of either sex calling for such testing or indeed any lobbying for this... it's just some insane proposal put forth by you.

No good argument for it, yes - It seems you appeared to have missed that very point, presumably deliberately in some ridiculous attempt at misrepresenting and obfuscating the discussion in a misguided attempt to strawman your disingenuous approach around addressing any of the actual points raised.

If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least listen to the caller so you get the right one.

When was she told that she was intersex? And what relevance does that have here?

Who in particular?
I'm talking about several athletes (hence not using specific names) whose gender verification processes have been quite public, who were lied to regarding the purpose of the testing, and whose first knowledge of their condition was only after the final results came back.
The verification began with detailed examination of their genitals, by IAAF medical experts, with internal scans, genetic and testosterone testing following only afterward. So even at this stage the doctors are looking very closely for signs of virilization and only coming up with 'female'.

Again you're highlighting something that doesn't appear to be a contradiction, some general average performance advantage with some specific individual in a specific sport.

Why does everything "seem" to "appear" to you?

In the 2015 panel addressing the Dutee Chand issue, the CAS states:
"The Panel considers the lack of evidence regarding the quantitative relationship between enhanced levels of endogenous testosterone and enhanced athletic performance to be an important issue. While a 10% difference in athletic performance certainly justifies having separate male and female categories, a 1% difference may not justify a separation between athletes in the female category, given the many other relevant variables that also legitimately affect athletic performance".

They go on to state:
"However, in order to justify excluding an individual from competing in a particular category on the basis of a naturally occurring characteristic such as endogenous testosterone, it is not enough simply to establish that the characteristic has some performance enhancing effect. Instead, the IAAF needs to establish that the characteristic in question confers such a significant performance advantage over other members of the category that allowing individuals with that characteristic to compete would subvert the very basis for having the separate category and thereby prevent a level playing field. The degree or magnitude of the advantage is therefore critical".

The top tertile female athletes in the IAAF's own study outperformed the bottom tertile by more than 3%.
Semenya outperforms most (but not all) of her fellow competitors by only 2% (although I will say I couldn't find any stats that actually gave any values higher than around 1.6%).
That's not much of an advantage.

The issue is simply that she's a biological male and they have an inherent advantage that doesn't mean that ever biological male will perform (at the very highest level) exactly 10% better than the world's best women in some event.

The IAAF gave the 10-12% average as the performance advantage over and above females confered by male testosterone ranges. To date, no intersex athlete has even come close to that average.
But presumably you disagree with their ruling on the Dutee Chand case, as she is also a biological male?

So you would agree that Caster Semenya and other people who identify as female, but are actually male shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport in that case.

No, I agree that testosterone levels are not a sound measure by which to judge someone, based on the studies and articles published by numerous experts.

 

[Jokester]

No, I agree that testosterone levels are not a sound measure by which to judge someone, based on the studies and articles published by numerous experts.

I'm going to point out the obvious here about the lack of evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't mean the evidence supports your position, it means there's no evidence for either position because there's no body of evidence of sufficient quantity to make a rational statistically significant judgement on professional elite women's sport. But we're talking about males who dominated their sports before being found out...

But hey, maybe we should just let women's sport descend in some sort of handicap sport as long as nobody gets too much of an advantage.

 

[dowie]

No good argument for it, yes - It seems you appeared to have missed that very point, presumably deliberately in some ridiculous attempt at misrepresenting and obfuscating the discussion in a misguided attempt to strawman your disingenuous approach around addressing any of the actual points raised.

If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least listen to the caller so you get the right one.

So you put forth an unrelated facecious point just for the sake of it or you thought you were demonstrating something... either way your response to it has become even more vague.

Who in particular?

Caster, the subject of this thread.

The top tertile female athletes in the IAAF's own study outperformed the bottom tertile by more than 3%.
Semenya outperforms most (but not all) of her fellow competitors by only 2% (although I will say I couldn't find any stats that actually gave any values higher than around 1.6%).
That's not much of an advantage.

The IAAF gave the 10-12% average as the performance advantage over and above females confered by male testosterone ranges. To date, no intersex athlete has even come close to that average.

This was already addressed, you don't seem to understand how averages work... Intersex people are a small group she's essentially a good amateur club runner, you could pick any number of good amateur club runners and show they "only" beat the world's best females by 2% then draw some false conclusion about the advantage of male athletes vs females. That would be obviously flawed though as it is when you've just done it above.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm going to point out the obvious here about the lack of evidence. A lack of evidence doesn't mean the evidence supports your position, it means there's no evidence for either position because there's no body of evidence of sufficient quantity to make a rational statistically significant judgement on professional elite women's sport.

There's insufficient evidence that supports using testosterone levels as the specific and sole measure to judge athletic advantage, so you shouldn't use it as such... just as you wouldn't convict someone of a crime for which there's insufficient evidence. That's as far as it goes, and that's why the IAAF's Hyperandrogenism Regulations were ruled against.

But we're talking about males who dominated their sports before being found out...
But hey, maybe we should just let women's sport descend in some sort of handicap sport as long as nobody gets too much of an advantage.

You say "found out" as if it were something they knew about all along...
And yes, in many opinions, womens' sport already is run as a handicapped category.

So you put forth an unrelated facecious point just for the sake of it or you thought you were demonstrating something... either way your response to it has become even more vague.

Response to what?
I've already stated and reiterated my points and perspectives several times. Not my problem if you're not paying attention.

Caster, the subject of this thread.

In that case what I've already said above applies to her, being one of the several athletes with the similar experiences that I discussed.

This was already addressed, you don't seem to understand how averages work... Intersex people are a small group she's essentially a good amateur club runner, you could pick any number of good amateur club runners and show they "only" beat the world's best females by 2% then draw some false conclusion about the advantage of male athletes vs females. That would be obviously flawed though as it is when you've just done it above.

She's a "male athlete with a male body and male testosterone and male advantages".... who just happens to not exhibit much in the way of those supposed male advantaged performance.
Moreover, she doesn't always beat everyone and her performance stats are not consistent with the CAS's criteria even for separation of athletes in the female category.

But feel free to school me on whatever intricacies of averages you think define the case here......

 

[Jokester]

There's insufficient evidence that supports using testosterone levels as the specific and sole measure to judge athletic advantage, so you shouldn't use it as such... just as you wouldn't convict someone of a crime for which there's insufficient evidence. That's as far as it goes, and that's why the IAAF's Hyperandrogenism Regulations were ruled against.


You say "found out" as if it were something they knew about all along...
And yes, in many opinions, womens' sport already is run as a handicapped category.

Not in the way you are arguing though. Your agrument is basically boiling down to, men can compete in women sport, as long as they don’t win by too much. Maybe Caster Semenya, rather than be subjected to unnecessary medical interventions, should instead need to carry ballast?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Your agrument is basically boiling down to, men can compete in women sport, as long as they don’t win by too much.

That is effectively the ruling by which Dutee Chand and other genetically-male athletes with similar DSD conditions are already allowed to compete as females.
It's not "my argument", it's what's currently happening.

 

[Jokester]

That is effectively the ruling by which Dutee Chand and other genetically-male athletes with similar DSD conditions are already allowed to compete as females.
It's not "my argument", it's what's currently happening.

Hurrah!

And yes, that was why my initial post was it’s the end of women’s sport to allow this to continue!

 

[Destination]

Interesting.

 

[dowie]

I've already stated and reiterated my points and perspectives several times. Not my problem if you're not paying attention.

No, you're just being vague as there is no argument for preventing low T men from competing in men's events other than a lame attempt at whataboutery and as you realise that you're not even addressing the point anymore.

She's a "male athlete with a male body and male testosterone and male advantages".... who just happens to not exhibit much in the way of those supposed male advantaged performance.
Moreover, she doesn't always beat everyone and her performance stats are not consistent with the CAS's criteria even for separation of athletes in the female category.

But feel free to school me on whatever intricacies of averages you think define the case here......

Aside from winning gold medals?

I did already mention your mistake re: sample sizes in the previous post but I can try to explain further.

You made some iffy claims re: performance where you claimed male performance is 10% greater on average than female and another claim that Semenya's performance was only 2% greater. I'm not sure what the 2% or 10% relate to exactly but it doesn't matter as there is an obvious flaw.

Do you understand that if you were to find the fastest 800m runner from your local pub he'd likely lose against women in the Olympics? Or if you got the best amateur runners in your area they'd not necessarily be guaranteed to win?

There are 4 billion women in the world and you're comparing to the very fastest of them... can you see the flaw yet?

5α-Reductase 2 deficiency is a very rare condition, we don't even have a good estimate on how many people have it but it's a tiny portion of all males.

Do you not understand that the very fact that male intersex people (a small subset of all males) are clearly overrepresented in, for example, the women's 800m, is a pretty obvious indicator that they do have a male advantage?

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'm not sure what the 2% or 10% relate to exactly

How are you not sure, when it was written quite clearly in several posts and also featured in the IAAF's and CAS's own reports that you yourself linked to??!!
If you're not even reading your own ******* links, you're just being a disingenuous ****.

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Interesting.

Oh, you think the cool thing to do is to photoshop black women's faces to be animalistic in order to humiliate them. I feel really bad for the people that have to engage with you on a daily basis