Gender and competition.

[forgetful]

Of course she has an advantage. But it's an advantage she was born with. She shouldn't be barred from competing because of that advantage any more than we would ban Yao Ming for being 5 inches taller than anyone else on the court, or ban Michael Phelps for being double-jointed in his ankles and chest, or ban Kenyan athletes who are born with physical traits that make them better long-distance runners than anyone else in the world.

Shocking news ... elite athletes aren't like the rest of us. They all have genetic advantages, some more than others. She shouldn't be punished for her advantage.  The runners Semenya competes against may not have her testosterone levels, but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they have high testosterone levels compared to the vast majority of women.

The transgender issue is a red herring. Caster Semenya isn't someone who was born with the parts of one gender but self-identifies as another. She was born a woman. A woman with very high testosterone levels, but a woman nonetheless.

Clarification, she was born an individual with both male (testicles) and female (vagina/ovaries) reproductive organs.  The transgender issue is not a red herring, as it poses the question of what defines gender? 

If its reproductive organs, she has both, so is she male or female?

If its genenetics/epigenetics, then she has traits of both, so is she male or female?

The simple answer to this and the one I prefer, is it is a matter of identity.  So, by competing as a woman, she is saying her gender is female.  According to international rules, she must then have hormone levels typical of females.  She does not.

As for the bolded above.  It is an extremely difficult and interesting statement and one that is a huge question in the current athletic community.  There are numerous genetic advantages some athletes have and you are right, we do not discriminate against these advantages.  We are also now at an age where chemically, or genetically we can alter the genetic and epigenetic markers of individuals (Gattica, but even more advanced); should this be allowed and how if not how do we discern natural genetical alteration from unnatural. 

Where I define a difference here is that gender, historically is a genetic advantage that we have decided to separate, because it was easy to discern differences between genders on a visual level.  We now know gender is more fluid and the genetic aspects of gender are not discernible on a visual level. 

So how do we separate individuals based on gender so there are no gender based advantages?  Or do we just stop separating genders?

I'm actually reposting this in a new thread.  Its a bit dicey of a topic, but one I would be interesting of hearing others chime in on.  I'm going to ask in advance that no one goes into politics as this skirts political issues.  If the powers that be deem it out of line I understand and apologize.

To put things into perspective, in 2009, her testosterone levels were 5 times higher than mine (an athletic male).

[Jay Bee]

Forgetful says he's "an athletic male"...

[GooooMarquette]

During one of the heats, they mentioned that the data were equivocal as to whether the elevated testostone would cause faster times.  Sounded contrary to what I'd always believed, but I'm pretty sure that's what they said.

[forgetful]

During one of the heats, they mentioned that the data were equivocal as to whether the elevated testostone would cause faster times.  Sounded contrary to what I'd always believed, but I'm pretty sure that's what they said.

That's one of the really complicated aspects is that the whole science in this area is even very fluid.  The issue is two-fold.  There is no denying that testosterone will increase athletic performance, but it requires proper tissue specific expression of the Androgen receptor (AR), and a lack of mutations in AR.  (note: Even this explanation is far too simplified, but a message board is not the place to go into all the details).

There are people born genetically XY, that are physically female due to a mutation in this AR gene. 

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome#genes

And the famous case of the athlete Maria Jose Martinez-Patino.  A woman by all external appearances, but due to complete insensitivity to androgens technically a male so forced out competition. 

Some individuals are more complicated, these people have partial or mild forms.  From the leaked medical records, Caster likely has a partial form, which allows her to be partially responsive to male hormones in a male way (e.g. increased athletic performance, outward male characteristics and undescended testicles), which allows her to athletically develop as a male, but have external female genitalia (often in these very rare instances doctors just choose a sex and alter the genitilia if necessary; in countries like South Africa, this can be done without even the knowledge of the family).

Maria and other women with hyperandrogenism may have no responses and then would not experience any increased performance from androgens.  Even in females with no alteration in AR that are pure XX, there is are variations in sensitivity to testosterone, which makes clinical studies of this issue difficult.  The problem is twofold.

1.  Detecting the degree of sensitivity to androgens and determining the extent to which that provides a competitive advantage. 

2.  We do not know enough about the complex biology of the neuroendocrine system to even begin to address 1. 

More importantly, there are hundreds-thousands of different ways one could have altered responses to androgens that lead to altered sexual/physical development.  We likely won't understand all these differences (since many are very rare) for decades. It is one of the reasons why gender is now considered far more fluid; it is way more complicated than looking at their genitals or even genetics (e.g. XX or XY).

I would argue that for Caster the situation is obvious; she has clear indications of sensitivity to testosterone that would lead to a competitive advantage...but where and how do we draw the line?

[forgetful]

+1

The unfair disadvantage Caster Semenya must endure to compete for Olympic gold

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/unfair-disadvantage-caster-semenya-must-000000810.html

“Genetic conditions that enhance performance in sport include congenital mutations of the erythropoietin receptor gene leading to high levels of hemoglobin, which does not disqualify athletes,” Genel wrote. “There is no fundamental difference between congenital disorders leading to elevated testosterone levels, functional or not, and an erythropoietin receptor mutation leading to high hemoglobin.”

Put simply, there’s no reason for “congenital disorders leading to elevated testosterone levels” to disqualify athletes when genetic conditions leading to high levels of hemoglobin don’t.

Genel points to other athletes who have had genetic differences, including Michael Phelps, with his supreme flexibility and enormous feet. It’s never suggested that Phelps should step aside for the shorter Ryan Lochte because of something he can’t control. Nor is it suggested that, say, Kevin Durant should remove himself from the Olympics because he’s too close to the basketball rim.

Also, consider all the advantages certain athletes are granted without any work: wealthy parents, a city with many resources, a country with support for budding athletes, a community with excellent teachers and coaches. Of course, hard work is crucial and revered, but the Olympics would look very different if hard work was the only variable in athletic success.

The problem is that most differences are celebrated. For instance, Katie Ledecky is praised for swimming “like a guy”, while Semenya’s differences are abhorrent to a vocal chorus of competitors and fans.

---------------------

Forgetful - should MU not have perused Henry Ellenson because he is a foot taller than most of the kids near your local high school?  After all, it is inherently unfair to them that he is so athletic and so tall.

As I commented on in the other thread: 

First, do we have different sporting divisions for individuals in basketball based on height?  No, so irrelevant.

What we do differentiate in divisions is based on gender.  So the question becomes, what defines gender?

If the leaked testing is correct, Caster has testicles and a vagina?  Male or female?

Caster has male hormone levels, but likely intermediate responsiveness to those hormones?  Male or female?

For millennia we have differentiated the species based on male or female:  Different roles in society, different athletic divisions etc.  Where does Caster fall?  Where should she compete?

The articles you and others link are red herrings to cover up the actual issue with defining gender.  No one in athletics wants to address that elephant in the room, but we are reaching the point in science where that needs to be addressed. 

The link and comments make me think of the movie Arena, which I loved as a kid, where athletes of different species competed in boxing, but were electromagnetically modified during the fight to ensure no competitive advantages, only spirit.  Unfortunately, there we can't do that, so some will always have genetic advantages.  The question becomes when do we separate people based on genetics. 

So far, we have only done so with gender:  Currently, there are two ways in sports we define gender.

1.  External genitalia you were born with.
2.  Hormone levels if you do not identify with your external genitalia.

Caster falls in a grey area, not fitting either of these categories completely.

[GGGG]

So far, we have only done so with gender:  Currently, there are two ways in sports we define gender.

1.  External genitalia you were born with.
2.  Hormone levels if you do not identify with your external genitalia.

Caster falls in a grey area, not fitting either of these categories completely.

A grey area that is exceedingly rare so why are we worrying about it?  Let her compete because the precedent won't have much impact.

[forgetful]

A grey area that is exceedingly rare so why are we worrying about it?  Let her compete because the precedent won't have much impact.

I understand this perspective, but records are long lasting.  An individual like her alters the competitive landscape for everyone, forever. 

My stance is the opposite.  Yes, her situation is rare, and it may be unfortunate, but I would argue individuals in that situation should not be allowed to compete in international competitions or like transgender individuals they should have to take hormone altering drugs.

Its really unfair to tell one intersex/transgender person they can't compete as the gender they identify with without hormone altering drugs since their testicles descended, but the other person can because theirs are still held inside; where both are genetically XY.

[Pakuni]

Clarification, she was born an individual with both male (testicles) and female (vagina/ovaries) reproductive organs.  The transgender issue is not a red herring, as it poses the question of what defines gender? 

The only source for anything close to this is an unconfirmed and unsourced report - not seen anywhere else, by the way -  in an Australian tabloid that she has internal testes. That's a) hardly a strong, credible evidence and b) not the same thing as being male or part male.
The transgender issue is not at all analogous because Semenya from birth has been identified as female by herself, her family, her doctors and others around her, and she has female body parts. A transgender person is is ID'd at birth as another gender, and has that gender's body parts, and then only later in life identifies as another gender. I don't see how you find the two situations comparable.

According to international rules, she must then have hormone levels typical of females.  She does not.

What are her hormone levels? What's your source on that?
I believe these rules have been thrown out because the IAAF could not produce any scientific evidence supporting contentions Semenya (or anyone like her) has a significant advantage because of her condition.
Moreover, you're treading into some questionable territory here. Who gets to decide what is and what is not a "womanly" hormonal level?

We are also now at an age where chemically, or genetically we can alter the genetic and epigenetic markers of individuals (Gattica, but even more advanced); should this be allowed and how if not how do we discern natural genetical alteration from unnatural. 

I imagine there will be a way to tell what's natural and what isn't, but that's science fiction right now and not relevant to the matter at hand. What we have now is an athlete who has a 100 percent natural genetic advantage. She should not be punished, disqualified or forced to alter her nature because of it.

So how do we separate individuals based on gender so there are no gender based advantages?  Or do we just stop separating genders?

This is a bit of a slippery slope here. The separation of male and female athletes is not going to disappear because of one runner deemed to manly by westerners.

I'm actually reposting this in a new thread.  Its a bit dicey of a topic, but one I would be interesting of hearing others chime in on.  I'm going to ask in advance that no one goes into politics as this skirts political issues.  If the powers that be deem it out of line I understand and apologize.

To put things into perspective, in 2009, her testosterone levels were 5 times higher than mine (an athletic male).

Source?

[forgetful]

The only source for anything close to this is an unconfirmed and unsourced report - not seen anywhere else, by the way -  in an Australian tabloid that she has internal testes. That's a) hardly a strong, credible evidence and b) not the same thing as being male or part male.

The transgender issue is not at all analogous because Semenya from birth has been identified as female by herself, her family, her doctors and others around her, and she has female body parts. A transgender person is is ID'd at birth as another gender, and has that gender's body parts, and then only later in life identifies as another gender. I don't see how you find the two situations comparable.

What are her hormone levels? What's your source on that?

An official involved in the testing was the source.  It is widely accepted as true by essentially the entire track and field community.  NPR even had an article addressing her position as intersex.

As for her hormone levels, she tested above 10 nm/dl, that is equivalent to around 400 ng/L.  If the leaked report is true, she tested 3 times above that limit, which is 1200 ng/L above the normal range for a male. 

I believe the reports, because Caster has admitted being forced to take hormones for awhile to lower her testosterone, during which her times and performance significantly deteriorated. 

It is rumored that all three 800M medal winners are hyperandrogenic and had to previously take testosterone lowering drugs and/or undergo surgery to remove testicles.  In the post race interview they were all asked how they felt when taking the drugs and they all consulted and refused to answer questions regarding it.

I believe these rules have been thrown out because the IAAF could not produce any scientific evidence supporting contentions Semenya (or anyone like her) has a significant advantage because of her condition.

Moreover, you're treading into some questionable territory here. Who gets to decide what is and what is not a "womanly" hormonal level?

I feel comfortable treading into this area as nuclear hormone receptors is an area of expertise.  As I said to Gooo it is a very complicated area, but for someone that is intersex, it would most definitely provide a competitive advantage unless they are completely insensitive to androgens. 

The IOC and IAAF rules were aware of this complexity.  These were the rules they instituted to only affect those obtaining an unfair advantage. 

First, they looked only at "functional testosterone" instead of total testosterone.  Functional testosterone is that which is taken up by cells by the Androgen receptor, so essentially requiring Male-like genetics and responses to androgens.  So women that have abnormally high T, but like most women are insensitive and don't have a competitive advantage (including XY individuals like Maria), would not test positive. 

Second, they set an extremely high bar.  They tested individuals who were XX with a condition that led to average T levels 3x higher than the average woman (at this level only 16 out of every 1000 olympic athletes would exceed it).  They used this value to establish a guideline.  The guideline was 5 standard deviations above this elevated level.  They chose this because only women who were XY with hyperandrogenism and internal testicles had ever tested above this value.  If they tested above it more thorough testing was conducted to find the cause (internal testicles) and to ensure they were having a competitive advantage (meaning the testosterone was affecting physiology).

These guidelines were put in place as a direct response to Caster Semenya and to address her unfair advantage in track.  Her tests and case were used as a guiding principle.  The IOC and IAAF tried to do this discreetly and behind the scenes but South African officials made it very public that Caster was being forced to undergo gender testing. 

After these rules were put in place, several women voluntarily had surgeries to remove internal testicles.  Some did not.  They were though all forced to take testosterone lowering drugs.  During this time period Caster went from running 1:55 with ease and dominating the 400M, 800M and 1500M in Africa, to not being able to break 2:00 and couldn't even post olympic qualifying times. 

After the CAS ruled suspended the testosterone cap, Caster's times dropped precipitously and she again dominated the field.

Also, the advantage high T allows, based on IOC studies, are almost entirely isolated to middle distance events, like the 400, 800 and 1500M.

I imagine there will be a way to tell what's natural and what isn't, but that's science fiction right now and not relevant to the matter at hand. What we have now is an athlete who has a 100 percent natural genetic advantage. She should not be punished, disqualified or forced to alter her nature because of it.

Actually for many of these issues, there isn't a way to know if it is natural or isn't.  It also isn't science fiction. Right now, there is a ton of doping going on using HGH, testosterone, EPO etc., that is disguised as completely natural.

This is a bit of a slippery slope here. The separation of male and female athletes is not going to disappear because of one runner deemed to manly by westerners.

Agreed.  And it is time as a society/science that we address the issue of Gender.  This isn't an issue of one runner being deemed manly by westerners.  It is an individual of ambiguous gender competing in events separated by gender; where the definitions of said gender are ill-defined. 

These same issues have ramifications throughout their lives and I think we are at a point now where we can intelligently address the issue.

[forgetful]

Pakuni, I provide detailed commentary on the history of High T rules for women above, but for the sake of a more clear discussion.  Let's leave Caster out of this. 

Should a person that is partially androgen insensitive and born with external female sex organs, compete as a man or woman?

For clarity, partially androgen insensitive in this case would mean having testicles (internal) and male hormone responses and born XY, but externally female.

And I'll give my answer.  Right now (with further science maybe not) they should have three choices for international competitions.

1.  Compete as a male
2.  Have surgery to remove the internal testicles.
3.  Either alone or in combination with 2, have hormone treatments to ensure they have hormone levels comparable with their perceived gender (just like transgender athletes).

If we do not make such changes look for women with 5-ARD to dominate middle distance events in the future (and other sports).  This mutation is most common in small pockets of the developing world, e.g. Africa, rural India, rural China.

[rocket surgeon]

   "For clarity, partially androgen insensitive in this case would mean having testicles (internal) and male hormone responses and born XY, but externally female."
 
Forgetful- I did find your responses to be fascinating and very insightful- seriously.  These are scientific and biological issues they probably will have to be addressed more and more in the future and probably beyond our lifetime...that's if we don't self-destruct before any of this could play out

  I know this may be really insensitive of me, but sorry, I just couldn't help myself-

   So a "partially androgen insensitive" person could actually go "F" themselves if they wanted to.

[Benny B]

Y'all realize that testes and ovaries are the same physical balls of material with differing functions, no?  It's pretty easy to spin the facts to meet your own narrative here when the line is essentially a single gene that activates during embryonic development.  But of course, a single gene could never mutate in a handful of people amongst billions of humans that would cause "internal testicles" (I'm glad I didn't have to sit on the medical board that spent several weeks trying to come up with that term).

So technically, every man had ovaries at one point and every woman had testicles... the only difference between the two today is simply what comes out of them.  Just like intelligence comes out of some people and loads of sh|t come out of others, even though we're all human beings.

So a "partially androgen insensitive" person could actually go "F" themselves if they wanted to.

Desire aside, I don't even want to ask what your thoughts regarding an erect penis bending 180 degrees* in a manner requisite for "F"ing oneself would be.

* (or more depending on how far north the compass typically points)

[forgetful]

Y'all realize that testes and ovaries are the same physical balls of material with differing functions, no?  It's pretty easy to spin the facts to meet your own narrative here when the line is essentially a single gene that activates during embryonic development.  But of course, a single gene could never mutate in a handful of people amongst billions of humans that would cause "internal testicles" (I'm glad I didn't have to sit on the medical board that spent several weeks trying to come up with that term).

So technically, every man had ovaries at one point and every woman had testicles... the only difference between the two today is simply what comes out of them.  Just like intelligence comes out of some people and loads of sh|t come out of others, even though we're all human beings.

Desire aside, I don't even want to ask what your thoughts regarding an erect penis bending 180 degrees* in a manner requisite for "F"ing oneself would be.

* (or more depending on how far north the compass typically points)

I understand the difference between testes and ovaries.  The key difference is in development, a person with internal testes is born XY, meaning male, with male hormones, but due to partial insensitivity to androgens does not undergo complete development of male genitalia. 

These individuals can be outwardly female, but the gonads will function equivalent to a males, meaning production of androgens. 

Its also way more complex than a single gene that activates during embryonic development.  It is the presence of entire different sex chromosome, XY instead of XX, that due to mutations in a gene or often several genes does not allow you to develop sex organs consistent with your genetic sex.  That's why they are referred to as intersex. 

Also, every woman did not have testicles at any point in their development.  If you want to go that route, you could possibly argue that everyone had ovaries at one point, but the presence of the Y chromosome altered development to produce testes, but not the other way around.  Even such a statement wouldn't be entirely proper.

   "For clarity, partially androgen insensitive in this case would mean having testicles (internal) and male hormone responses and born XY, but externally female."
 
Forgetful- I did find your responses to be fascinating and very insightful- seriously.  These are scientific and biological issues they probably will have to be addressed more and more in the future and probably beyond our lifetime...that's if we don't self-destruct before any of this could play out

  I know this may be really insensitive of me, but sorry, I just couldn't help myself-

   So a "partially androgen insensitive" person could actually go "F" themselves if they wanted to.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, I provide detailed commentary on the history of High T rules for women above, but for the sake of a more clear discussion.  Let's leave Caster out of this. 

Should a person that is partially androgen insensitive and born with external female sex organs, compete as a man or woman?

As a woman.
As far as I'm concerned, her condition is no different than the genetic rarities that make Michael Phelps such an extraordinary swimmer or that make East Africans such dominant long-distance runners.
Yes, she was born different from a "normal" person. Just like every other elite athlete. Are we making Michael Phelps correct his double-jointed ankles because it gives him an advantage? Do we demand Usain Bolt alter his genetic makeup because the "sprinting gene" ACTN3 is more prevalent in Jamaicans than people from other parts of the world?

And so far the science backs me up here. No evidence exists proving that her condition gives her a significant advantage over her competitors, which is why the Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended testosterone testing of women.
Basically, you want to either ban her or force her to change her very nature, without having evidence showing that what makes her different gives her an unfair advantage.

It's not as if this is a new condition. As many as 1 in 2,000 people are born with some form of intersex variation, but only one of them is the world's best female middle-distance runner right now. If her condition presents such a massive unfair advantage, why aren't women's athletics being dominated by Caster Semenyas?
And speaking of dominance, Semenya isn't as dominant as some would like to believe. Her winning 800M time in the Olympics is two seconds slower than the world record.
Compare that to Katie Ledecky, whose 800M freestyle time was 10 seconds faster than the previous Olympic record (and the last time someone other than Ledecky held the world record). Best check her for testes, huh?

If we do not make such changes look for women with 5-ARD to dominate middle distance events in the future (and other sports).  This mutation is most common in small pockets of the developing world, e.g. Africa, rural India, rural China.

Why hasn't this already happened?

[rocket surgeon]

"Desire aside, I don't even want to ask what your thoughts regarding an erect penis bending 180 degrees* in a manner requisite for "F"ing oneself would be."
 

      Ummmm, ouchie?  And ain't no swimmers makin the U-turn outta da shoot bent in half Ein'a?

[forgetful]

As a woman.

As far as I'm concerned, her condition is no different than the genetic rarities that make Michael Phelps such an extraordinary swimmer or that make East Africans such dominant long-distance runners.
Yes, she was born different from a "normal" person. Just like every other elite athlete. Are we making Michael Phelps correct his double-jointed ankles because it gives him an advantage? Do we demand Usain Bolt alter his genetic makeup because the "sprinting gene" ACTN3 is more prevalent in Jamaicans than people from other parts of the world?

Again, the point is that never in the history of mankind have we separated people based on those types of genetic differences. 

We have almost always separated sports based on gender. 

30 years ago, someone with the condition Caster is leaked to have would have been forced to compete as a male.  Genetically she is believed to be male.  At the tissue level (not visual) her reproductive organs are male. 

She identifies as female and has been raised as female since her genetic abnormalities were unknown and gender is an artificial construct to create a dichotomy where one does not exist.

I'm ok with your rationale, I really am not arguing against it.  My question then for you though is:

How do you define gender for sports?

And so far the science backs me up here. No evidence exists proving that her condition gives her a significant advantage over her competitors, which is why the Court of Arbitration for Sport suspended testosterone testing of women.

Basically, you want to either ban her or force her to change her very nature, without having evidence showing that what makes her different gives her an unfair advantage.

To be fair and honest, science does not back you up here.  For an individual that is XY and is partially androgen sensitive (this is what Caster reportedly is) their is a pronounced and proven scientific advantage to elevated androgens, most pronounced in middle distance events like the 400, 800 and 1500. 

This is very evident by Caster and others who were temporary forced to take hormone lowering drugs.  All of them had significant decreases in their performance.  Caster in particular was unable to post an olympic qualifying time while on hormone lowering drugs.

The CAS ruling to suspend it is over concerns that the ruling is being too broadly applied and it would affect individuals that are XX and/or XY that are completely androgen insensitive.  The science on whether androgens affect these people is dicey and incomplete.

Almost assuredly the CAS ruling is going to be overturned.

It's not as if this is a new condition. As many as 1 in 2,000 people are born with some form of intersex variation, but only one of them is the world's best female middle-distance runner right now. If her condition presents such a massive unfair advantage, why aren't women's athletics being dominated by Caster Semenyas?

Careful here.  First, it is believed that all three medal winners from the current olympics (in the 800M) are hyperandrogenic (and XY) and were being required, until recently, to take hormone lowering drugs.  The first question in the post race conference was how they all felt when taking the hormone lowering drugs...they refused to answer. 

If we dive deeper into the history of the 800M run, it is even more interesting. 

The record was set in 1983 by 32 year old Jarmila Kratochvílová.  She was taking extremely high doses of steroids.  It is considered one of the dirtiest records on the books.

Most of the top 25 times were completed by 7 women in the 80s who were part of systematic doping regime's of Eastern bloc nations. 

Only 4 individuals that were not part of the Eastern bloc doping regimens have posted times within 2 seconds of the record:  These are below.

Pamelo Jimeno (a contemporary of Semenya) holds 6 of the top 25 times of all-time (including 3rd best ever).  She has also been reported to be hyperandrogenic.

Jolanda Ceplak.  Was shown to be using EPO as a PED.

Caster.  hyperandrogenic

Maria Mutola (a mentor to Jimeno and Caster) is the only other.  She barely ran within 2 seconds of the record, and never broke 1:55.

So the top 25 times and only times under 1:55 in history are dominated by individuals who are intersex or underwent massive doping regimes (typically androgens). 

And speaking of dominance, Semenya isn't as dominant as some would like to believe. Her winning 800M time in the Olympics is two seconds slower than the world record.

Compare that to Katie Ledecky, whose 800M freestyle time was 10 seconds faster than the previous Olympic record (and the last time someone other than Ledecky held the world record). Best check her for testes, huh?

Why hasn't this already happened?

The record issue is addressed above. 

Ledecky's hormones have been tested, she does not exceed the threshold set by the IOC and IAAF.  She is known to not be hyperandrogenic.

As for why it hasn't happened.  Up until 2015 it would have been pointless.  They would have had to have internal testes removed or taken hormone lowering drugs. 

Also, in the developing areas of Africa and India it is being done.  That is why nearly all the positive tests in international athletes stemmed from these areas. 

In the US, individuals that suffer from these conditions are usually well known at birth.  Often times parents will chose a gender and the individuals from a young age take hormones to facilitate their gender selection and/or have the internal testes removed.  These individuals have no competitive advantage.   

[forgetful]

As a woman.

As far as I'm concerned, her condition is no different than the genetic rarities that make Michael Phelps such an extraordinary swimmer or that make East Africans such dominant long-distance runners.

I posed this question in the longer reply above, but wanted to make sure it is seen.

I'm ok with your position, not saying it is wrong at all.  But the important question then is:

How does one define gender for athletic competitions?

[Tugg Speedman]

Pakuni, I provide detailed commentary on the history of High T rules for women above, but for the sake of a more clear discussion.  Let's leave Caster out of this. 

Should a person that is partially androgen insensitive and born with external female sex organs, compete as a man or woman?

For clarity, partially androgen insensitive in this case would mean having testicles (internal) and male hormone responses and born XY, but externally female.

And I'll give my answer.  Right now (with further science maybe not) they should have three choices for international competitions.

1.  Compete as a male
2.  Have surgery to remove the internal testicles.
3.  Either alone or in combination with 2, have hormone treatments to ensure they have hormone levels comparable with their perceived gender (just like transgender athletes).

If we do not make such changes look for women with 5-ARD to dominate middle distance events in the future (and other sports).  This mutation is most common in small pockets of the developing world, e.g. Africa, rural India, rural China.

See Caster's history.  All three have happened to her.

First she was declared to "not be a female" (but was never ruled to be male either).
Then was allowed to compete if she took hormone suppression drugs.
Then in 2011 the CAS (the Court of arbitration of sports in Switzerland) decaled that the rules about what is a female (due to Caster's case) and requiring Caster to take hormone suppression drugs as arbitrary and said she could as female without the hormone suppression drugs.

[Jay Bee]

You sexist pricks, broads be equal to dudes.

OPEN Olympics is the righteous pathway. May the best HUMAN win. We r all 1

[rocket surgeon]

I posed this question in the longer reply above, but wanted to make sure it is seen.

I'm ok with your position, not saying it is wrong at all.  But the important question then is:

How does one define gender for athletic competitions?

Very thorough-well done.  It makes one wonder.  Are they going to test everyone and base the competition on different levels of hormones?  Far fetched?   Level A   Level B, etc...hey, maybe they will then allow the Russians back in but only allow them to compete against other athletes with similar levels of androstenedione, etc...fair is fair, eyn'a?

[🏀]

forgetful is way too concerned about this.

[forgetful]

forgetful is way too concerned about this.

Concerned is the wrong word.  I think it is an important issue on gender rights and equality.  Sports has historically been a leader in these areas and leads to greater socio awareness of gender issues.

We currently have approached a precipice in societal rules/laws that has created divisive stances.  I think sports is a place where we can approach this together and all learn something along the way. 

In the end, I have almost no concern over what rules are put in place, rather I am interested in how one addresses the issue of gender in these non-obvious scenarios. 

Hopefully as a result we break down our stigmas and our human need to create a dichotomy (e.g. yes/no, right/wrong, good/bad) and a need to create absolutes based on perceived differences. 

[Tugg Speedman]

Concerned is the wrong word.  I think it is an important issue on gender rights and equality.  Sports has historically been a leader in these areas and leads to greater socio awareness of gender issues.

We currently have approached a precipice in societal rules/laws that has created divisive stances.  I think sports is a place where we can approach this together and all learn something along the way. 

In the end, I have almost no concern over what rules are put in place, rather I am interested in how one addresses the issue of gender in these non-obvious scenarios. 

Hopefully as a result we break down our stigmas and our human need to create a dichotomy (e.g. yes/no, right/wrong, good/bad) and a need to create absolutes based on perceived differences.

It is an important issue. 

Anyone remember Dr. Renee Richards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

Renée Richards (born August 19, 1934) is an American ophthalmologist and former tennis player who had some success on the professional circuit in the 1970s. In 1975 Richards underwent male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. She was then denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, which began that year requiring genetic screening for female players. She disputed this policy, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977 in a decision in favor of transsexual rights.[2] As one of the first professional athletes to identify as such, she became a spokesperson for the transgender community.

----

To put it bluntly to get the point across.  Richards was a man and could not make a living as a professional tennis player.  So in 1976 Richards had a sex change operation with the intention of becoming a processional women's tennis player.

Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall.   This is how bad it got



Is Richards at fault?  This is a politically charged question.  Fact is her arrived on this scene began the decline leading to the cover above.

So, if you Richards was part of the problem, then these gender questions matter.

[warriorchick]

It is an important issue. 

Anyone remember Dr. Renee Richards?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9e_Richards

Renée Richards (born August 19, 1934) is an American ophthalmologist and former tennis player who had some success on the professional circuit in the 1970s. In 1975 Richards underwent male-to-female sex reassignment surgery. She was then denied entry into the 1976 US Open by the United States Tennis Association, which began that year requiring genetic screening for female players. She disputed this policy, and the New York Supreme Court ruled in her favor in 1977 in a decision in favor of transsexual rights.[2] As one of the first professional athletes to identify as such, she became a spokesperson for the transgender community.

----

To put it bluntly to get the point across.  Richards was a man and could not make a living as a professional tennis player.  So in 1976 Richards had a sex change operation with the intention of becoming a processional women's tennis player.

Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall.   This is how bad it got



Is Richards at fault?  This is a politically charged question.  Fact is her arrived on this scene began the decline leading to the cover above.

So, if you Richards was part of the problem, then these gender questions matter.

You are seriously implying that Renee Richards is at least  responsible for the decline of tennis?

It would be less disingenuous to blame racism, because, you know, Venus and Serena.

[Pakuni]

Her arrival on the scene as a women's tennis player coincided with a dive in the popularity in women's tennis, and then tennis overall.   This is how bad it got

That's utter nonsense.
Tennis was at its peak in popularity when Renee Richards was playing and in the decade immediately after. The sports' popularity began to decline in the early 90s, when charismatic, exciting men's players like Connors, McEnroe, Borg, Becker, etc. vanished and dull automatons like Sampras and Federer began to dominate. Also hasn't helped, at least in this country, that the best male players of the past decade haven't been Americans.

Tennis' popularity via Google Ngram: