Intersex / transgender etc competing. Thoughts?

[ttaskmaster]

I'm always bored here at work!!

 

[dowie]

So as long as they don't get caught, they can compete in either gender.

Maybe, but unlikely that anyone intersex with an unfair advantage due to testosterone would get away with it as they'd be flagged up for testing.

Likewise you might as well say that as long as you don't get caught you can take drugs. In reality plenty of athletes obey the rules on drugs but we still have random testing for the minority who don't.

But the discussion in general seems to hinge around how certain athletes are 'clearly male', because the papers said so... There's very little being discussed that doesn't depend on or refer to that assumption.

bit more than that, the high testosterone levels, leaked test results for example - it isn't just about looking masculine notice there isn't the same furor about say the Williams sisters in tennis

regardless this isn't about specific people but the topic in general

You seem to think this is a bad thing.

it is, as already explained above - it negates the whole purpose of segregating by gender

If he is legally recognised as female and everyone else accepts him as female, what's the problem?

you mean she

again already explained above - this isn't about social gender acceptance but biological advantages as a result of biological sex

see:

Again we segregate men an women because men have an inherent advantage physically. If we've got an athlete that isn't fully male or female but has aspects of that male physical advantage then he/she shouldn't (IMO) be in the female category (which is essentially the protected one). IMO therefore anyone not female (i.e. including people who are socially female but are intersex with some male advantages such as testes and high testosterone) should be in the male category.

Then you'll have to create a new category, or set of categories, because there is NO WAY you can exclude someone from competing on the basis that they were born different - You'd start a war!

we do separate people on the basis of how they were born - we have male and female races

are you changing your position now to advocate for a third category?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Maybe, but unlikely that anyone intersex with an unfair advantage due to testosterone would get away with it as they'd be flagged up for testing.

Why would they be flagged for testing if they don't exhibit above normal performance?
So long as they don't massively exceed what's expected of them, they shouldn't get flagged.

Likewise you might as well say that as long as you don't get caught you can take drugs. In reality plenty of athletes obey the rules on drugs but we still have random testing for the minority who don't.

So random gender testing is the answer?

it isn't just about looking masculine notice there isn't the same furor about say the Williams sisters in tennis

Have they been tested?
I certainly have heard a LOT of remarks on how blokish those two look, along with several others. Fatima Whitbread is the main one I always remembered and even back then I wondered if it was a bloke or not.

it is, as already explained above - it negates the whole purpose of segregating by gender

If we're at the point in human evolution and learning where the lines of gender are blurring, even if only when examined under a microscope, then perhaps this whole gender polarisation thing is an outdated idea...?

you mean she

You decided he was male...

again already explained above - this isn't about social gender acceptance but biological advantages as a result of biological sex

But either they don't have a biological sex, because there's only male or female... or they have both.... or are slightly more one than the other... or are somewhere along a sliding scale...

Either way, the law ultimately decides what they are. Science is only there as an advisor and even then, only if the discrepancies between their genetic, biological, assigned, perceived and legal genders present a difficulty for other people, it would seem...

we do separate people on the basis of how they were born - we have male and female races

And Semenya was assigned to the female one, ergo she's female and there's no problem, right?
Black and white, simple as.
Or are you now suggesting we can change peoples' genders and redefine them after decades of them living one way and insist they now live the other?
I said born different. You say either male or female. After telling me that intersex people definitely exist, you're now ignoring the different...

are you changing your position now to advocate for a third category?

Me?
I said *you'll* have to make the changes, as in the collective you. It's not something I'd advocate.

 

[dowie]

Why would they be flagged for testing if they don't exhibit above normal performance?
So long as they don't massively exceed what's expected of them, they shouldn't get flagged.

So random gender testing is the answer?

You can test where there is some suspicions, reason to test - such as dubious testosterone levels.

If we're at the point in human evolution and learning where the lines of gender are blurring, even if only when examined under a microscope, then perhaps this whole gender polarisation thing is an outdated idea...?

Are you advocating that then? You'd essentially have only males competing in that case

You decided he was male...

[citation needed]

But either they don't have a biological sex, because there's only male or female... or they have both.... or are slightly more one than the other... or are somewhere along a sliding scale...

We are talking about people who are intersex, not fully male or female. What they are legally allowed to be considered as in different countries based on how they want to present themselves socially etc.. in terms of 'gender' isn't necessarily where we need draw the line.

You seem to be advocating on that basis and that is your opinion, I'm presenting a different opinion.

And Semenya was assigned to the female one, ergo she's female and there's no problem, right?
Black and white, simple as.
Or are you now suggesting we can change peoples' genders and redefine them after decades of them living one way and insist they now live the other?
I said born different. You say either male or female. After telling me that intersex people definitely exist, you're now ignoring the different...

Nope. Again we segregate men an women because men have an inherent advantage physically. If we've got an athlete that isn't fully male or female but has aspects of that male physical advantage then he/she shouldn't (IMO) be in the female category (which is essentially the protected one). IMO therefore anyone not female (i.e. including people who are socially female but are intersex with some male advantages such as testes and high testosterone) should be in the male category.

Me?
I said *you'll* have to make the changes, as in the collective you. It's not something I'd advocate.

my position doesn't require a change to have a third classification and if you're not advocating for one either then it isn't really relevant

 

[ttaskmaster]

Are you advocating that then? You'd essentially have only males competing in that case

Why?
Again, you say they can be tested IF there are grounds for suspicion... but if they don't give you any, then there's no reason to start sticking needles in them and deciding whether to go reassigning them a new gender.

[citation needed]

frankly a good male club runner could go for an operation, declare himself female and set world records

But still *him*self... You're saying he's still male.

What they are legally allowed to be considered as in different countries based on how they want to present themselves socially etc.. in terms of 'gender' isn't necessarily where we need draw the line.

I hadn't even considered 'other countries' yet. I was thinking they'd either be subject to whatever laws govern the country hosting the Olympics at the time, or more likely a specific set of laws for the Olympics that supercede any nations' own... at least as far as regulations go.

It's also not about " how they want to present themselves socially etc", as much as how they already *have been* raised and defined by society, the law, etc etc.
How would you react if you had always been male, but were underperforming a bit and your employer had you tested, before then declaring that your testosterone was a touch low, so you're now to be considered female in all relevant matters...?
Of course, there will be an official company-wide statement to this effect so that everyone knows to treat you accordingly, as well as local press publications for those who don't work in the company...
What would your friends say?
Your wife/girlfriend?
What about folk here?

my position doesn't require a change to have a third classification and if you're not advocating for one either then it isn't really relevant

Your position ends the careers of several athletes and discriminates against many potential others, for no good reason other than forcing them to be something they're not.

 

[dowie]

Why?
Again, you say they can be tested IF there are grounds for suspicion... but if they don't give you any, then there's no reason to start sticking needles in them and deciding whether to go reassigning them a new gender.

indeed

But still *him*self... You're saying he's still male.

no I'm saying he was

I hadn't even considered 'other countries' yet. I was thinking they'd either be subject to whatever laws govern the country hosting the Olympics at the time, or more likely a specific set of laws for the Olympics that supercede any nations' own... at least as far as regulations go.

well that is what we're talking about - what rules should govern their participation in races not what they're legally considered in terms of their 'gender' in a wider context in some random country or other

It's also not about " how they want to present themselves socially etc", as much as how they already *have been* raised and defined by society, the law, etc etc.
How would you react if you had always been male, but were underperforming a bit and your employer had you tested, before then declaring that your testosterone was a touch low, so you're now to be considered female in all relevant matters...?
Of course, there will be an official company-wide statement to this effect so that everyone knows to treat you accordingly, as well as local press publications for those who don't work in the company...
What would your friends say?
Your wife/girlfriend?
What about folk here?

Thing is it is a bit more than that, we're talking about intersex people. I'm not sure why gender would be relevant in general employment. But if you'd accepted a job as a woman when it was relevant and specifically required women but you're really not a women then such an employer might need to exclude you or offer an alternative role. Could you give an example of where you think this might actually apply?

Your position ends the careers of several athletes and discriminates against many potential others, for no good reason other than forcing them to be something they're not.

No one is forcing anyone to be something they're not, rather I'm highlighting that they're not something they're claiming to be. Athletics discriminates on the basis of biological gender/sex for fairly valid reasons - stating. There are plenty of good male club runners who could smash female times but are also discriminated against in so far as they too can't enter female races.

You're saying for no good reason yet I've posted the reasoning several times - you're welcome to dispute that actual reasoning but you seem more interested in quoting other parts of my posts and then misrepresenting my views on how say some side issue such as how testing should work.

 

[ttaskmaster]

indeed

So unless they start being rather good, to the point where other people can't keep up, it doesn't actually matter if they're intersex or not.

no I'm saying he was

But that he is female now... that being the only other category available....?

well that is what we're talking about - what rules should govern their participation in races not what they're legally considered in terms of their 'gender' in a wider context in some random country or other

In that case, every athlete should have to prove their sex/gender/biological designation/whatever, regardless of how they look and what their legal status is, otherwise it's just discrimination.

I'm not sure why gender would be relevant in general employment.

Then why is it always one of those things that needs to be identified in personal data collection, both in and outside of employment?

Could you give an example of where you think this might actually apply?

Just about anywhere that has separate male and female toilets, showers, etc.
Same for any role that requires a specific gender, though it's mostly women in demand rather than men. Airport security, Policing and places that have to do body/strip searches, for example.

No one is forcing anyone to be something they're not

You won't allow them to be female when that's what they've grown up being, so they have to now change that to be male and suffer very low performance or not compete and go be something else.
No, you're not forcing them to be something they're not, but you're not giving them much choice either.

rather I'm highlighting that they're not something they're claiming to be.

Then I demand an inquisition be set up to root out all other possible genetic deceivers, regardless of whether they even knew, or not.

Athletics discriminates on the basis of biological gender/sex for fairly valid reasons - stating.

But how far do you go in drilling down into someone to decide their gender for them?
Back in the day it was just getting naked in front of some judges. Now we're running all sorts of analyses... Do we go into DNA sequencing and all that?

There are plenty of good male club runners who could smash female times but are also discriminated against in so far as they too can't enter female races.

Test them, then and find out if they're really women...

You're saying for no good reason yet I've posted the reasoning several times

I said no GOOD reason...

 

[winwin]

I wonder what do the transgender community think about this?

 

[dowie]

this is just getting sidetracked if we're having multi-quotes where we're bringing up male and female toilets

maybe there will be an appeal by the IAAF in which case we can revisit

 

[ttaskmaster]

I wonder what do the transgender community think about this?

Of those few I've spoken to, a few feel they should be recognised and accepted as their new gender in all walks of life, but they generally accept that they could be denied on the basis that this is a change they elected rather than their natural state - One of many such instances they face and one of the main reasonings behind my opinion.

this is just getting sidetracked if we're having multi-quotes where we're bringing up male and female toilets

You asked...

 

[Amp34]

Interesting read here, if you have some time.

Really interesting read there.

I think the most important part for this discussion is definitely:

I would also like to relate a two-part epiphany that I had after my transition. In 2005, nine months after starting HRT, I was running 12% slower than I had run with male T levels; women run 10-12% slower than men over a wide range of distances. In 2006 I met another trans woman runner and the she had the same experience. I later discovered that, if aging is factored in, this 10-12% loss of speed is standard among trans women endurance athletes. The realization that one can take a male distance runner, make that runner hormonally female, and wind up with a female distance runner of the same relative capability was life changing for me.

So a limit on testosterone, rather than one of the many other options (testies, chromosomes etc) looks like the best way to go currently.

t was as a result of Semenya, and the absolutely disastrous handling of that situation, that the policy changed, and until last year, the policy in place said that women could compete only if their testosterone levels were below an upper limit. That upper limit, 10 nmol/L, was set up based on a study done on all the women competing in the World Championships in 2011 and 2013. The researchers took the average testosterone levels of women with a condition called Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, which was already elevated at 4.5 nmol/L, and then added 5 SD to it.

The addition of 3 SD (which created a level of 7.5 nmol/L) would have meant that 16 in 1000 athletes would exceed the cutoff. That’s why the extra 2 SD were added, to make sure that the upper limit would apply only to those with hyperandrogenism (or those who are doping).

99% of female athletes, by the way, had testosterone levels below 3.08 nmol/L. So the upper limit of 10 nmol/L was three fold higher than a level that applies to 99 in 100 women participants.

Anyone above that cutoff should then either take medication to reduce their testosterone levels, or should not be allowed to compete in womens sports (but still allowed to compete in mens if they are good enough, similar to the separation of the regular Olympics and Paralympics. There is still going to be an advantage to women/intersex people with naturally high levels of testosterone, but at least there is a properly defined limit. Remove "gender" from the equation and set limits on what appears to be the defining point between the sexes (strength and athletically).

Also an interesting speculation on what could happen in the future if that limit may not be put in place again.

There are a couple of very bad scenarios that are possible if there is no regulation of naturally produced advantages for female athletes. Some background information is necessary in order to understand the first undesirable outcome. There are a variety of intersex conditions or DSDs (differences of sexual development). The DSD that probably imparts the largest athletic advantage is called 5-alpha reductase deficiency or 5-ARD. Children born with 5-ARD have a Y chromosome, but have a deficiency in the enzyme that is used to convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone or DHT. In turn, DHT is responsible for the development of external male genitalia, hence babies with 5-ARD are often assigned female gender at birth. After puberty, girls with 5-ARD have T in the low-normal male range, and hence have a huge athletic advantage over other women.

5-ARD is extremely rare in the general population, but there are isolated pockets around the world where it is not uncommon. 5-ARD is an autosomal recessive condition, and so both parents must carry the gene for it in order for a child to be affected. In those remote areas where 5-ARD and consanguinity (inbreeding) are both common, a significant percentage of the population will carry the gene for 5-ARD. Given the globalization of sport, it is possible that those interested in developing the next generation of women’s sports stars will look to these areas to find girls with 5-ARD, and aid in their athletic progress. This would be an extremely bad scenario for the rest of the women in the world who care about sporting success.

The other undesirable scenario I foresee is that transgender women might also be allowed to compete with unaltered testosterone levels. Most trans women desperately want to lower their T levels, but a minority of trans women would be willing to compete against other women with male levels of testosterone. I have seen other trans women argue that if intersex women can compete unaltered, then we should get to do the same thing. This would be a nightmare, not only for the world’s female athletes, but also for those trying to increase acceptance for trans people everywhere.

 

[Amp34]

this is just getting sidetracked if we're having multi-quotes where we're bringing up male and female toilets

maybe there will be an appeal by the IAAF in which case we can revisit

From the link on the first page, Q&A session with a transgender athletic scientist on the IAAF panel (the woman quoted in my previous post)

The CAS decision in the Chand case is a temporary one; the IAAF and their lawyers are working to reverse that verdict. Since I am involved with the case, I will have no further comment on it. If the IAAF ultimately loses the case, I believe they will try to come up with some other way to place limits on who gets to compete in women’s sport. I don’t care to speculate publicly on what that method might be.

Seems they are appealing and will probably appeal again if that fails.

 

[Uriel]

What if things had been different and a young Caitlin Jenner had been allowed to compete in women's events of her day?

It's an interesting question and women's events are somewhat arbitrarily limited. If you're going to limit entry based on gender you need to have some criteria to go by.

 

[dowie]

From the link on the first page, Q&A session with a transgender athletic scientist on the IAAF panel (the woman quoted in my previous post)



Seems they are appealing and will probably appeal again if that fails.

that is what i was referring to, it isn't clear they definitely will though

 

[dowie]

There is still going to be an advantage to women/intersex people with naturally high levels of testosterone, but at least there is a properly defined limit. Remove "gender" from the equation and set limits on what appears to be the defining point between the sexes (strength and athletically).

This doesn't just potentially affect running and gender/sex is still a potential issue - it would be very problematic to only base this on testosterone IMO. You'll then open the door to trans women too and additional issues - such as what about a trans woman with a 'male' frame/bone structure competing in judo, wrestling etc.. the testosterone issue is solved but there are more advantages than that - obviously there is also a skill element so it is less likely that these edge cases like Semenya get through.

 

[Washout]

Ooo forgot about this! Ok, I'm born on a leap year and am now officially 9 (36). I'm off to the local primary school sports day to clean up.

Hang on, that sounds wrong...

 

[dowie]

edit - looks like this forum/sub section is now out of use