Christine Mboma wins Diamond League 200m

she has clearly put in the training

Not really. If you have functional testes you can swap disciplines, train for a few weeks and pretty much hack up in the women's competition, unless you come up against another individual with testes, or are comparatively really old, fat, injured or useless (see L. Hubbard).

I am hoping that Mboma will actually force the various governing bodies for athletics to take action. Their success in the women’s 200m is too obvious to ignore. They didn’t even use starting blocks in the 200m at the Olympics & still took a silver medal.

Michael Johnson always refers to Mboma & Masilingi as the DSD athletes.
I suspect he is prevented from expressing his honest opinion because of the BBC.

Michael Johnson was also part of the BBC team and conspicuoulsy quiet on this matter.

21.81 is 18th in the 2021 U.K. rankings for U20 males

So, yeah that’s fast

I was also a bit at the comment in that thread that “Mboma is fast for an 18 yr old male”.

Mboma’s U20 WR time in the women’s Olympic 200m finals of 21.81 wouldn’t meet the men’s 200m Olympic qualifying time.

It is more than clear that athletes are privately fuming about this and have been told to keep quiet. BBC gagged Sharron Davies at the Olympics and Martina at Wimbledon.

CurrantTeacake

I was amazed by the "transphobic" accusations, when what is being discussed has absolutely nothing to do with transgender issues.

[quote andyoldlabour]There is an interesting thread about this very subject on the "Lets run" forum.

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10834669[/quote]
Wow. Lots of very robust language on there. Has anyone told them they must be nicer?

But it still comes across as ambiguous to those who have not done the background reading.

And it also implies that, for example, a male who had undergone a course of puberty blockers could fairly compete. I don't believe that's the case - male advantage is visible before puberty.

CAIS is a stronger than that - it's total insensitivity at all stages since birth.

‘Been through male puberty’ would cover it

I can see where you are coming from. But it still comes across as ambiguous to those who have not done the background reading. This has the effect of 'softening' the term, but also adding confusion.

It does not clarify the situation for the majority of readers and would still be effectively calling that person 'male'.

There is an interesting thread about this very subject on the "Lets run" forum.

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10834669

*But what term are we left with to critically analyse the situation that female athletes find themselves in if we cannot use ‘male’ to describe these athletes?

‘Been through male puberty’ would cover it (& and exclude those with CAIS who have not had the sporting advantage of male puberty).

@Reallyreallyborednow No one is questioning your education, but yes, the information is out there about what medical conditions Mboma, Semenya and the athletes have. They are male. It is not a matter of opinion. You are just being obtuse. It is not a matter worth debating at this point.

Jaysmith71

It gets worse when the BBC use this caption to describe Semenya, Wambui and Niyonsaba.

"All the 800m medal-winners from Rio 2016 - (left to right) Francine Niyonsaba, Caster Semenya and Kenya's Margaret Wambui - have been forced to change events by new limits on testosterone levels"

No mention of the fact that they have the same 46 XY DSD.

NotBadConsidering

It is gaslighting, the sporting bodies must think we are all stupid.
Niyonsaba now holds Burundi national records at the following distances - 400m, 800m, 3000m, 2 miles, 5000m and 10000m.
I don't know any other athlete, male or female ever having that range of distances.

More anti-factual reporting from the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58482920

"Naturally high levels of testosterone....."

Now wherever does that come from, BBC?

Why is it not up to the people with CAIS to prove that they ^don't" have an advantage rather than the other way around?

As far as I can see the court case failed because the athletic bodies were trying to be "inclusive" so relaxed the XX rules to allow a few others in. That then became "you are allowing these XY people in so you must allow these other XY people in".

We can have a discussion around dsd’s in sport and advantages it may confer without pointing and shouting “male” until everyone else agrees.

But what term are we left with to critically analyse the situation that female athletes find themselves in if we cannot use ‘male’ to describe these athletes?

Or should we simply keeping pointing out there DSD status? Or even worse allow the obscuring language adopted by the sports organisations that tactically take advantage of these athletes for their own gain, such as the Nambibian Olympic committee who continues to lie about their status?

How would you describe their sex status in relation to the specific topic of this thread to ensure clarity and not to perpetuate the confusion that has been allowed to occur?

And just to note, we've ended up where we are because the argument for the way the genetic testing was being done, which was as per TurquoiseBaubles, was indeed basically that it was "simpler".

That was challenged in court, by excluded athletes, and they couldn't justify it.

But they tied themselves up in knots trying to fix it.

If you went back to simply that, it would fail in court the same way. There's no evidence CAIS have enough of an unfair advantage to exclude them.

But a multi-stage system starting with the genetic test could be justified, as long as you were narrowing down to the individuals with male advantages.

If the category of women's sport is to be kept for women and girls, and the only way to categorically test for eligibility is a cheek swab for XX chromosomes, then that's the simplest way to go.

Right, but the "if" clause there is not true, is it? CAIS is a thing that can be tested for.

Saying "sorry, we can only do one test", because it's "simpler" isn't a brilliant argument. Where the dividing line falls ends up being rather random due to the nature of the test - where it errs from what you really want to find out.

You are allowed to have second rounds of decision making. First round can be "pass" or "go to second round", it doesn't have to be "pass" or "fail".

And of course, if the male category is turned into an Open category, then it doesn’t matter if the athletes in there are XX, XY, with DSD or not.