Good grief. Now they’re saying that not all xx are female and not all xy are male. And that xy ‘generally' means male.

It's because the inherent principle of women's sports only being for female people threatens the 'inclusion' of trans identified men; threatens the idea that men/male people can be women too.

If someone who was genuinely thought to have been female at birth can be excluded, then obviously any male person claiming a female identity will be too.

This issue is at the heart of the whole matter. Puberty changes everything - that is why there is also such a mad gnashing of teeth about puberty blockers for children.

In a nutshell.

They become the genetic make up of part of the mother.

But crucially, not part of the mother’s gametes and had no affect on her development.

@AShortName I agree genetically they have the same XY shaped chromosomes as everyone who is genetically male. However I also think that having been born with a vagina and raised as a girl they are socially much closer to being like me, a woman (as far as I know!), than they are to any man I know, and I would also have no issue with them being in women's spaces given their anatomy and history but sport would depend on the discipline... so now I have to step down from my previous position of absolutely 100% no 'males' in women's spaces... and admit that there are some times that I'd consider a 'male' to be a woman or consider our two categories insufficient to meet everyones needs and that is frying my brain a little!!

No, they become integrated into the mother. They become the genetic make up of part of the mother. They may be picked up in a genetics test, depending on where the test is taken from. It is a form of chimerism - having different genes in different parts of your body.

Of course it also happens with your daughters, but is far less likely to ever be found

I don't know what you are despairing of!

I am a geneticist. Sorry if science can't quite be bent to fit your politics.

Your stance would have more validity if you GENUINELY accepted science, rather than being selective about it

In Rio in 2016 Gold, Silver and Bronze in the women's 800m went to males with DSDs

Wow. I can't remember the storm there has been about the 2 boxers.

I'm sure every FWR "regular" will feel deeply for these young people as human beings. But selling young people - young men, now - in this position the promise that they can become an icon within women's sport is the opposite of sensitive and practical care, quite apart from the callous disregard for WOMEN as human beings and as athletes.

Totally agree @KohlaParasaurus.

We need to be sympathetic to people with DSDs AND the women affected by their inclusion in female sporting events.

But if anyone seriously believes that the DSDs weren't discovered until they were 16, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's because the inherent principle of women's sports only being for female people threatens the 'inclusion' of trans identified men; threatens the idea that men/male people can be women too.

If someone who was genuinely thought to have been female at birth can be excluded, then obviously any male person claiming a female identity will be too.

This issue is at the heart of the whole matter. Puberty changes everything - that is why there is also such a mad gnashing of teeth about puberty blockers for children.

In Rio in 2016 Gold, Silver and Bronze in the women's 800m went to males with DSDs

I’m what I’m really curious about is why people are so keen to defend the inclusion of people with male genetics in women’s boxing. I just do not understand it. It’s not a trans issue, but the usual be kind mob are repeating the usual mantras. Why?

Nope. Unnnecessary.
DSD affects 0.018% of population. Most are picked up at birth, if not at puberty.
it is highly questionable that anyone post puberty would not know if they understand anything about their anatomy.
theoretically, someone from extreme “conservative” society where sex and sexual anatomy isn’t taught could slip through not knowing .
but vanishing even more rare than 0.018%

the cost vs benefit of doing this on entire population is not viable. A waste of time. It delivers no benefit . Better to invest in better maternity services and sex education in countries where people might slip through net of diagnosis. And to eliminate stigma by better education on the conditions to perspective parents.

And then a sex chromosome test on anyone testing for higher testosterone in sports or anywhere else it matters what sex someone is.

ideslly we’d be testing gamete. But hey, that’s pretty invasive compared to a cheek swab.

the ioc objection to sex testing, I think goes back to old school sex tests between 1936 and 1968 where any women considered “suspicious “ in women’s sport could be pulled aside and made to undergo a visual inspection - not even a doctor doing it to start with. These were known as “peek and poke” tests 🤬 Obviously horrendous and unacceptable.. In 1968 to 1999 they started chromosomes only tests. Which is a fucking joke. Becuase it didn’t help one jot with what was actually happening at this time with huge campaigns of doping testosterone to female atheletes particularly from iron block countries.
So they then switched to hormone testing. So they’ve stopped doping (mostly) cheats, but cleared pathway to XY individuals with lower testosterone now being able to compete. All very silly. They need to do both. Either/or will always incentivise some states to work around rules.

@Shortshriftandlethal

Caster Semenya's first love was football, but at that time girls' football was not as established as it is now....so Semenya was channeled, instead, into women's athletics. It is clear that there was some calculation involved in this.

To be fair that is like many many young athletes who start in one thing and move to another.

As are the armchair Google genetecists

I'm interested in how a relatively simple issue: should males be allowed fight females in women's boxing competitions? has been shattered into hundreds of smaller issues. I've been trying to find out if there is a name for that kind of rhetorical procedure, i.e. smother your opponent's fairly straightforward argument in a barrage of minutiae.

There's an acronym on MH, IANAL, which I hope means 'I am not a lawyer' - the alternatives are 😱- so...

IANAL, but I've been trying to find out if the everyday understanding of terms like 'male' or 'female' can be overruled by consideration of complex rare medical conditions like CAIS or Swyers..
So far I've come up against things like Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur a Sociis, and I need a cup of strong tea and a lie-down😏

I think perhaps I should be looking more at rhetoric and debating. Given that somebody on MN knows everything, is this:

"It's much more complicated than male/female/XX/XY, because <insert list of very very rare medical syndromes>"

a recognised debating technique? And what is the counter-technique, apart from saying 'Nobody likes a show-off, now let's get back to the boxing...'

Caster Semenya's first love was football, but at that time girls' football was not as established as it is now....so Semenya was channeled, instead, into women's athletics. It is clear that there was some calculation involved in this.

I'm sceptical as to whether Caster semenya was socialised as a girl.

Interviews with Caster show a highly sexist attitude towards girls, dismissive actually. And comments from his school teachers/coach back that up.

Maybe, if this DSD isn't that rare, people remain far more undecided than one might imagine.

that’s a very small group of individuals in any country. Yet here they are in women’s sports. Doesn’t seem like an odd coincidence. Seems an odd coincidence it also happens in countries with less developed sports programmes for women ( or men). All too suspicious for me.

And less developed medical programmes.

They stand out in sport if they've had the advantage of a male puberty surely.

How many other DSD presenting sportspeople are you aware of?

So, 0.018% of populations have DSDs .

then , a small number of DSDs are potentially detected before puberty as they have a symptom profile that extends way beyond sexual function. Some are life threatening. In a higher proportion there is significant ambiguity in anatomy at birth that would, in most countries with robust maternity services, questioned and child given further tests. Those not knowin till puberty are a small sub group, or those in countries where stigma or poor maternity services exist where there are anantomical issues that should raise questions.

So we’re talking about the small % of DSD affecting males that either were impossible to tell pre puberty, or society/family missed or ignored, that seem to end up in sports classes for women. Not those DSD affecting females either.

that’s a very small group of individuals in any country. Yet here they are in women’s sports. Doesn’t seem like an odd coincidence. Seems an odd coincidence it also happens in countries with less developed sports programmes for women ( or men). All too suspicious for me.

Weird isn't it that this disorder is so rare yet so many of them turn up as elite athletes at the Olympics. Especially from countries where training isn't easily accessible. It's almost like, I don't know, they were deliberately sought out and trained to compete for their countries.

I don't find that weird. I think that's more to do with physical advantage if they are going through a male puberty.