Is there evidence for this?

Sorry, just for clarification, would that mean they have XY chromosomes but a female body presentation? f they are "insensitive" to T, how do they have the biological advantages of men?

They are sensitive to T.

For these athletes the "female body presentation" pretty much extends to "not having typical male genetalia".

The rest of the body is very much male, and this would have been obvious from puberty. The genetalia would likely also have become more obviously male then. The 5-ARD condition has been colloquially described as "little girls who turn into men".

XY athletes who are insensitive to T (so CAIS like Dalea in the video) are not subject to the rules.

I was actually taught in biology class that all foetuses start off looking female

They start off looking like fish too.

Someone here said that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone.

I think the suggestion is that this competitor has a DSD. I agree that this isn’t clear from the article which is misleading.

Just spotted this on my newsfeed and very confused. Someone here said that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone. So does that men that this BBC article is lying by omission about the sex of the runners to create a story that isn't true?

It talks about two Namibian runners who have had to switch to different events because they have high T...

www.bbc.com/sport/africa/58029941

Years ago it used to be commonly taught, including in psychology textbooks, that an XY foetus was masculinised by the hormones in utero, otherwise developed as a female. Which is sort of true but a bit fuzzy - it describes what seems to happen but not really the more accurate and precise details you'd need as an expert.

I'm not sure if that's because it just wasn't seen as important for most people to know the technical details, or there was a less sophisticated understanding even in medical circles, or what. But I imagine that is where this idea comes from and that's why it's still kicking around.

The real problem comes when you have people trying to draw conclusions from something that was perhaps never means to be a thorough explanation.

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is interesting though. If the presence of something is absent the usual effect of that thing, how relevant is it? The karyotype isn't female but to all intents and purposes the 'product' (phenotype) is. It's like the difference to the brain between silence and deafness. Different reasons, same endpoint.

If you're pro GRA you're a TRA...

I'm not TRA or GC. I'm pro-science and pro-existing legislation.

People can choose their pronouns, but not change their sex. Sex based spaces are vital.

Side two - everyone else. I call these people GC.

They aren’t though. Some people who argue for single sex spaces believe very strongly in gendered roles and many women who want single sex spaces don’t have an opinion on gender.

If you call everyone who isn’t a TRA ‘GC’ you undermine the meaning of the words.

I was not telling anyone what to do. I was expressing my belief that I think that this is the best strategy.

In many ways I would love it if women as a whole came to the conclusion that TRAs deserve every bit of vile abuse they get - there are plenty of people on social media who really are asking for a mouthful of the most personal abuse going, and I'd quite happily be the one to do it. But I don't, out of respect for the GC cause and my belief that sinking to their level risks doing more harm than good.

In all seriousness though - if a load of you want to get together and nominate some "genderfuck" (their term) who abuses women and asserts their womanhood whilst looking like a typical builder who hit every branch of the ugly tree on the way, for me to abuse, then I'll probably do it.

Side one - TRA - TWAW, full stop, no debate.

Side two - everyone else. I call these people GC.

Though I suspect that will be hard to do as the gender dysphoria trans people help give legitimacy to the non-gender dysphoria trans people to access women’s spaces

Battleneck
my point is that GC people need to (continue to) call out misinformation and nastiness on their own side - try to make sure that the GC side of the debate is as kind and honest as possible to make sure that it is exceptionally hard for a fair-minded person to criticize it.

The problem is the 'be kind' mantra seems to be a cover for 'be passive and accepting of nonsense, and override your own boundaries'. No thanks.

I think the time for being kind is over - it has gotten us nowhere. Pushed aside, shouted down, trodden on. Being kind isn't working anymore, we need to be calm, assertive and unwavering and not worry about whether people like us or not.

There's no point in worrying whether we appear to be the most reasonable of all, that should not be our focus, especially when those who would seek to destroy us will just steamroll over everything we say/do regardless.

They are not interested in playing fair. They don't need to worry about being kind or honest, as has been demonstrated very frequently.

We also need to separate the trans people with gender dysphoria from those without - they don’t seem to have anything in common at all.

[As an aside, this thought in my head always follows the rhythm of the 'I bind you, Nancy' quote from The Craft.]

"Triggernometry had Blaire White on who asserted that trans IDs are caused by in vitro hormone wash."

Meh. That theory was suggested decades ago. Pretty sure I was still a teenager the first time I read of it, so we're talking four decades. If there was anything in it, would they not have found some evidence by now?

"And BB had someone on with CAIS (Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome), who said [paraphrase] we all start out female and that the inability of those with CAIS to use testosterone means sufferers are female."
We all start out female - wait, what, something flips us from XX to XY in vitro? Oh, sorry, my mistake - a male is mistaking appearance for substance (again). 'No visible penis' is not the same as 'female'. Similarly, a male with CAIS might look / be raised / be socialised as females would be, but all this still does not mean that they "are female".

Although you did make me go back and double-check about insensitivity.

Wikipedia's text says "the insensitivity to androgens is only clinically significant when it occurs in individuals with a Y chromosome or, more specifically, an SRY gene.", which is what I originally said.

Ah, another bit of Wikipedia clarifies - it's offset by the more robust set of female chomosomes...

Genetic females (46,XX karyotype) have two X chromosomes, thus have two AR genes. A mutation in one (but not both) results in a minimally affected, fertile, female carrier. Some carriers have been noted to have slightly reduced body hair, delayed puberty, and/or tall stature, presumably due to skewed X-inactivation. A female carrier will pass the affected AR gene to her children 50% of the time. If the affected child is a genetic female, she, too, will be a carrier. An affected 46,XY child will have AIS.

A genetic female with mutations in both AR genes could theoretically result from the union of a fertile man with AIS and a female carrier of the gene, or from de novo mutation. However, given the scarcity of fertile AIS men and low incidence of AR mutation, the chances of this occurrence are small. The phenotype of such an individual is a matter of speculation; as of 2010, no such documented case has been published.

Which seems to suggest that CAIS is not really a thing for genetic females (needing a double genetic failure).

Oh look, a man on the thread telling us to be kind.

"GC" is just another label, it's not relevant to most people who are supportive of normal sex segregation in certain circumstances.

Agree. ‘Gender critical’ just means somebody who criticises gender. There aren’t clear ‘sides’, unless you want to view everything through the lens of a culture war.

I think you make a common mistake @Battleneck by talking about "sides"

In particular the "GC side".

"GC" is just another label, it's not relevant to most people who are supportive of normal sex segregation in certain circumstances.

There's lots of abusive people on Twitter. There's no need to describe them as being on a "side".

The WI Spa chaos in LA was indicative of the many reasons people have for either objecting to inappropriate male exposure or supporting it. Who could tell which of the many "sides" they were on?

There aren't "sides" and "GC" is a sweeping generalisation in the same way t**f is.

16:59NecessaryScene
I recall about Androgen insensitivity in women is that there is not enough evidence to support it's existence....

Lots of clutching at straws going on out there to try to get an "explanation". The one about hormone washes is particularly popular.

my point is that GC people need to (continue to) call out misinformation and nastiness on their own side

This is a bit of a derail now, (as I haven't seen anything "nasty" on this thread) but Battleneck out of curiousity, seeing I've no idea the GC person you're referring to who you follow, would a comment such as "men aren't women though" or "transwomen are a type of man" be deemed "nasty" in your opinion?

IIRC, genetic females can have androgen insensitivity - it just doesn't lead to any problems, so isn't then classed as a DSD. (would stop T working on them if they wanted to dope or trans though)

Many DSDs are like that - the same condition leads to drastically different symptoms depending on your (still binary) sex. Maybe no symptoms for one sex.