Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

The IOC: “ we don’t want a return to the bad old days of sex testing”

167 replies

InterrudelyUpted · 02/08/2024 18:57

I want to give some really important context to this: it was a classic “throwing the baby out with the bathwater “ argument.

Of all the many types of DSDs that affect people born with XY chromosomes, Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) is one of the rare ones that confers no male puberty advantage at all. That’s because no matter how much testosterone may be circulating inside your endocrine system, your body is completely immune to it. People affected by this have zero male advantage, apart from possibly being a bit taller than average. They grow up looking completely female on the outside, with pretty typical female muscles and speed and strength and pelvis width and everything.

But CAIS people were used as an example of whataboutery to show the flaw in a straightforward argument that “all XY people have an advantage because of going through male puberty”.

It’s actually quite simple to separate out CAIS from other people with XY chromosomes, your genetic test comes back showing you have XY chromosomes but then they very quickly establish that you no receptors and therefore no male puberty and no male advantage. And CAIS women tend to be pretty shit at sports anyway due to the aforementioned lack of testosterone. But hey go, that’s where we are.

Can’t do sex testing in sports because it might theoretically offend a small bunch of people with a DSD who actually want to be left completely out of it anyway.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
miri1985 · 03/08/2024 03:24

Whammy · 03/08/2024 02:08

Just read an interesting article that calls into question the motivations of the IBA: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/dan-wolken/2024/08/01/boxers-under-fire-olympic-gender-tests/74634233007/?utmsource=substack&utmmedium=email - not so black and white.

Edited

To my mind the first sentence in that article is a lie: "Let’s make one thing very clear off the top. There isn’t a sane human being on Planet Earth who believes that a man should be boxing women in the Olympics."

Anyone who has read anything about this subject knows that there are a lot of people who think that exact thing should happen just as long as the person claims have the gender identity of a woman. I know that it is likely a DSD in the case of these 2 boxers but I find that first sentence galling when its patently untrue.

As regards the motivation of the IBA, I keep seeing people saying that they're Russian controlled etc. Why do people think that a Russian organisation is playing such 4d chess that they could predict that these 2 particular boxers would make the Olympic games and why only pick these 2?

Also if what the IBA is saying is wrong and these 2 boxers don't have XY chromosomes then release a test showing that. I am sure that if it was believed that this was all Russian nonsense that the boxers would have gotten their DNA tested in the time period since they failed the tests.

NotBadConsidering · 03/08/2024 02:44

InterrudelyUpted · 03/08/2024 02:34

If you’re referring to that Emma Hilton tweet thread (she is a goddess!! 🙌 I love her! ) quoted earlier- it was from 2018 and you’ll see if you just read her thread that she corrects herself - those stats included PAIS men and Swyer syndrome. VERY different thing to CAIS. Emma herself will be the first to tell you that CAIS women are not represented in sport at the rate of one in 1000 because she believes in facts. And she is awesome.

Again let’s not lose sight of the point that the IOC needs to do way better at excluding men from women’s events.

No, I am not referring to Emma Hilton, because I am not on Twitter. I am referring to this study:

https://www.gimjournal.org/article/S1098-3600(21)00234-3/pdf

Just over 3000 athletes tested, and 3 were found to have CAIS, giving a prevalence of 1 in 1000 compared to a prevalence of 1 in 20,000 in general population.

I see you have ignored my point about periods. There is concern and investigation into whether certain injuries are more likely to happen during certain phases of the menstrual cycle.

Do you think it’s an advantage over your competitors to never have to worry about periods or the monthly hormonal changes associated with that?

InterrudelyUpted · 03/08/2024 02:34

NotBadConsidering · 03/08/2024 02:16

But I didn’t mention testosterone. They have advantages outside of testosterone like the ones I said.

Do you not agree that never having to worry about periods is an advantage to athletes? A concern no male has?

And in a study of Olympic athletes, athletes with CAIS were found to be prevalent at a rate of 1 in 1000, compared to a population rate of 1 in 20,000.

If you’re referring to that Emma Hilton tweet thread (she is a goddess!! 🙌 I love her! ) quoted earlier- it was from 2018 and you’ll see if you just read her thread that she corrects herself - those stats included PAIS men and Swyer syndrome. VERY different thing to CAIS. Emma herself will be the first to tell you that CAIS women are not represented in sport at the rate of one in 1000 because she believes in facts. And she is awesome.

Again let’s not lose sight of the point that the IOC needs to do way better at excluding men from women’s events.

OP posts:
NotBadConsidering · 03/08/2024 02:16

InterrudelyUpted · 03/08/2024 02:02

I don’t think that is a fair picture. Think of the ‘fight or flight ‘ response:
fight = testosterone
flight = adrenaline and cortisol shooting through your body.

CAIS women have none of the testosterone giving them that oomph to power through in sport or whatever.

All they have is the cortisol and adrenaline making them anxious and jitttery in any stressful situation.

One of the reasons they tend to be pretty shit at any competitive events. And another reason why they tend to just want to live a quiet life without conflict.

But I didn’t mention testosterone. They have advantages outside of testosterone like the ones I said.

Do you not agree that never having to worry about periods is an advantage to athletes? A concern no male has?

And in a study of Olympic athletes, athletes with CAIS were found to be prevalent at a rate of 1 in 1000, compared to a population rate of 1 in 20,000.

InterrudelyUpted · 03/08/2024 02:02

NotBadConsidering · 02/08/2024 23:08

Males with CAIS absolutely have advantage over women. They have skeletal advantages and never have to deal with fluctuations in oestrogen or progesterone, and never have to fit their training around periods, or have to fit their periods around training or competitions. The negative impact of periods on elite women athletes is a massive area of research and a major topic of discussion in sports science, and it doesn’t apply to CAIS athletes.

They have an advantage.

I don’t think that is a fair picture. Think of the ‘fight or flight ‘ response:
fight = testosterone
flight = adrenaline and cortisol shooting through your body.

CAIS women have none of the testosterone giving them that oomph to power through in sport or whatever.

All they have is the cortisol and adrenaline making them anxious and jitttery in any stressful situation.

One of the reasons they tend to be pretty shit at any competitive events. And another reason why they tend to just want to live a quiet life without conflict.

OP posts:
TempestTost · 03/08/2024 00:38

GrumpyPanda · 02/08/2024 21:32

The "bad old days of sex testing" shtick seems to be flavour of the month right now. NPR together with Canadian broadcasting have just come out with a six-part podcast series partially anchored around Christine Mboma and exploring "100 years" of sex testing. I've only heard the trailer speaking about "female" athletes so far - I need to find a trip where I don't risk running the car off the road in sheer exasperation. But it's probably worth having a listen if only to be better armed.

www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-8943/npr-embedded-cbc-testing-in-elite-sports-tested-podcast

I heard it the other day, it was on when I woke up, I was pretty enraged all day.

It was completely anti-scientific to start. But at one point, the question arose as to whether the science had been done - and the lady said - well, it wasn't necessarily "appropriate" science.

Italiangreyhound · 02/08/2024 23:46

Thepurplecar

"Does that go for the Paralympics too? No more 'bad old days' of ascertaining whether a person qualifies as disabled? No more 'bad old days' of categorising level of disability? It can all be done by how one identifies - look forward to seeing how that pans out."

I wondered that.

The whole point of elite sports is only certain people qualify, only certain people can do it.

Males, even with males with DSD, have a competitive advantage over females. Which is utterly unfair.

OvaHere · 02/08/2024 23:28

fourelementary · 02/08/2024 23:17

Can you actually imagine the outcry if someone fully able-bodied wanted to compete and said they “felt disabled”… or perhaps once had a six week spell in a wheelchair after they broke their leg…

They take it much more seriously.

Men's competition is also taken seriously.

Which just leave women's sports which not only do they not take seriously but they have policies which purposefully harm women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_at_the_Paralympic_Games

Cheating at the Paralympic Games - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheating_at_the_Paralympic_Games

Helleofabore · 02/08/2024 23:20

This from Ross Tucker is interesting. And sensible.

Use swabs as a ‘screening’ tool
and then if needed do further testing. This then stops the argument of ‘swabs are inaccurate’.

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1819332741105606960?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

Sorry, I am not able to post the text.

x.com

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1819332741105606960?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

fourelementary · 02/08/2024 23:17

Thepurplecar · 02/08/2024 21:07

Does that go for the Paralympics too? No more 'bad old days' of ascertaining whether a person qualifies as disabled? No more 'bad old days' of categorising level of disability? It can all be done by how one identifies - look forward to seeing how that pans out.

Can you actually imagine the outcry if someone fully able-bodied wanted to compete and said they “felt disabled”… or perhaps once had a six week spell in a wheelchair after they broke their leg…

Ritasueandbobtoo9 · 02/08/2024 23:10

So it fine for men to beat up women? Wankers.

NotBadConsidering · 02/08/2024 23:08

InterrudelyUpted · 02/08/2024 19:32

@AthenaBasil the clue is in the name – they are completely insensitive to androgens. ie: all
male hormones.

Males with CAIS absolutely have advantage over women. They have skeletal advantages and never have to deal with fluctuations in oestrogen or progesterone, and never have to fit their training around periods, or have to fit their periods around training or competitions. The negative impact of periods on elite women athletes is a massive area of research and a major topic of discussion in sports science, and it doesn’t apply to CAIS athletes.

They have an advantage.

caringcarer · 02/08/2024 23:01

yourhairiswinterfire · 02/08/2024 20:15

Heard the bloke (I think Mark Adams?) on ITV News bleating on about ''witch hunts''.

Well sex testing athletes would put an end to ''witch hunts'' whilst proving the IOC take women's safety and fairness seriously, wouldn't it?

With no sex testing, no testosterone testing, making out that a passport is the most important thing when it comes to participating in women's boxing, and pretending that having a one-off cheek swab is oh so humiliating and degrading, I think people can be forgiven for thinking that the IOC just don't give a shit about males battering women on their watch.

Exactly this. They'd rather expose females to male violence than risk upsetting less than 1 percent of male population who present as female.

Byjimminy · 02/08/2024 22:32

Wow.

All I can muster.

The sheer knowledge of mnetters never ceases to amaze me. I for one am hugely grateful for all the patient explanations of the complexities of DSDs. I do feel enormous empathy for those with these disorders. It's beginning to feel like some are being used as pawns and cashcows at the expense of women's safety in some sports.

StickItInTheFamilyAlbum · 02/08/2024 22:12

OhcantthInkofaname · 02/08/2024 22:09

Why not? However a pee test doesn't do DNA...

I was making the argument that both of these seem more intrusive or even invasive than a lifetime, one-off cheek swab.

OhcantthInkofaname · 02/08/2024 22:09

Why not? However a pee test doesn't do DNA...

Snowypeaks · 02/08/2024 21:52

Yes. You have to pee in the presence of a monitor.

GrumpyPanda · 02/08/2024 21:32

The "bad old days of sex testing" shtick seems to be flavour of the month right now. NPR together with Canadian broadcasting have just come out with a six-part podcast series partially anchored around Christine Mboma and exploring "100 years" of sex testing. I've only heard the trailer speaking about "female" athletes so far - I need to find a trip where I don't risk running the car off the road in sheer exasperation. But it's probably worth having a listen if only to be better armed.

www.npr.org/2024/07/12/g-s1-8943/npr-embedded-cbc-testing-in-elite-sports-tested-podcast

Signalbox · 02/08/2024 21:29

I’d put money on most female athletes wanting to return to the bad old days of sex testing.

Keepingcosy · 02/08/2024 21:28

And just how are these 'good days'? Yesterday (and this afternoon) wasn't for female sport.

LoobiJee · 02/08/2024 21:21

InterrudelyUpted · 02/08/2024 20:00

@BodyKeepingScore that’s the quote from Mark Adams, the spokesman from the IOC. He’s a dick and he’s wrong, and I hope I’ve helped explain why 🏅

He was Starmer’s best man according to the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/mark-adams-official-ioc-olympics-boxing-row-starmer-friend/

Official at centre of Olympics boxing gender row was Keir Starmer’s best man

Mark Adams, spokesman for the IOC who warned against a ‘witch hunt’ towards Imane Khelif, has known the PM since school

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/02/mark-adams-official-ioc-olympics-boxing-row-starmer-friend

Omlettes · 02/08/2024 21:13

From another poster on another thread
"This is the IBA statement at the time they banned them
https://www.iba.sport/news/statement-made-by-the-international-boxing-association-regarding-athletes-disqualifications-in-world-boxing-championships-2023/

Note the closing sentence

For clarification on why the IOC permits athletes with competitive advantages to compete in their events, we urge interested parties to seek answers directly from the IOC."

How cool is that, clearly they know whats going on and they are having none of it.
There are so many bodies in sport, probably all vying for funds.
This has to be about the money.

Statement made by the International Boxing Association regarding Athletes Disqualifications in World Boxing Championships 2023

As stated, the International Boxing Association (IBA) feels it appropriate at this prevalent time, to address recent media statements regarding those athletes Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif, particularly regarding their participation in the Paris Olympic...

https://www.iba.sport/news/statement-made-by-the-international-boxing-association-regarding-athletes-disqualifications-in-world-boxing-championships-2023

Runningupthecurtains · 02/08/2024 21:12

Snowypeaks · 02/08/2024 21:02

The IOC don't want any sex testing because they want to eradicate sex as the basis of a category.
Taken from Science of Sport podcast: their top two sport policy priorities are

  1. inclusion
  2. avoiding harm to anyone's identity

They have drunk the Kool-Aid. This situation with the boxers is a good thing in their eyes. Exposing women to harm barely registers as a problem because the aim of inclusion is so noble. They will not back down because they are absolutely intent on putting men into women's sports.

Edited for better formatting

Edited

Well they are struggling to find hosts for future games so halving costs might encourage more bids.