BBC finally acknowledges something may be amiss in Olympics women's boxing

Ah have just read your earlier post talking about height.

No. I believe those with CAIS are likely to be taller than average for example.

The boxing has just been discussed on Woman’s Hour. Hopefully this means the BBC have finally realised that they can’t completely ignore this stuff. Although it seems they’re still happy to churn out guff about it!

I would be open to hearing arguments on both side for this very small category.
I find it hard to believe that there are no other differences of strength speed biomechanics etc

Sorry posted too soon. I personally would allow people with XY who have not had the advantages of a male puberty ( CAIS and Swyer) to compete in the women's category but I understand

Actually individuals with CAIS are XY and totally insensitive to testosterone and look entirely female externally. They are relatively overrepresented in women's sport, maybe because they tend to be tall and they don't have periods or pregnancy.

My DD was suspected of having this as a teenager, although she was found to be XX after investigation, s

“Plus the likelihood of an xy individual with DSD and insensitive to testosterone who also happens to be a world class athlete is infinitesimally small.”

I don’t have the link to hand but other threads on here have quoted stats that suggest such individuals may in fact be over-represented in women’s elite sports competitions.

Surely the answer is that no one with xy chromosomes (simple cheek swab) can enter female categories unless they optionally choose to undergo additional testing to prove that they are intensive to testosterone.

I would bet the number wishing to do the additional tests by will be zero since they do actually know they have a male advantage.

Plus the likelihood of an xy individual with DSD and insensitive to testosterone who also happens to be a world class athlete is infinitesimally small.

Exactly. XY should exclude and after that the onus should be on the athlete and their team to provide a diagnosis that shows no competitive advantage.

It could fall under similar rules as therapeutic exemptions for drugs. Testosterone can currently be taken by transmen in male competition because they take it therapeutically. Men can't (unless they also have a condition). Transmen can't take therapeutic T in female competition.

"Blind them with non science", I think it's called.

Yes so much obfustucation in the article. Odd that they didn't use an infographic which would have clarified, but rather went for the sea of text approach.

Presence or absence of a uterus isn't diagnostic as both male and female DSDs have this - presence or absence of ovaries or testicles on the other hand...

Size of penis/clitoris also not diagnostic, although it can indicate something going on (virilised xx - probably doping or CAH in either case the athlete will definitely already be aware, virilised xy - probably 5-ARD or PAIS).

Anyway,

Despite reading various MN threads about different DSDs, I really don't understand why it's not as simple as the women's category= XX.

There will be a variety of people who are not pure XX and therefore cannot compete in the women's category anymore, and they might feel that is unfair, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and be very clear, otherwise there's no point in having two categories.

Lots of wiffle waffle about sex not being so clear cut, and that XY doesn't always mean male.......and it is referred to as an "in depth look".

When we add in some different things we get a bigger number.

I think this is a vast over statement? 1 in 300? Is this the number you get when you include women with PCOS ? Surely DSDs are far less common?

"He says that XY chromosomes in females are very rare - in Denmark it’s about one in 15,000.

But he believes that when adding these many genetic conditions together, about one in 300 people are affected."

Maybe the author just wanted to throw in a bit of irrelevant mansplaining to counter Emma Hilton's clear statement. So BBC readers can enjoy the typical Terf Twitter experience without having to log on to X.

The whole thing is simple. Cheek swab for sex determination. Testosterone can be looked at when they do spot drug tests that they do anyway.

There should be a dedicated counselling service for those athletes who discover that they have DSDs. It must be devastating for those affected - I expect that is very few by Olympic stage.

Girls can be born without a uterus (discovered due to lack of menarche at puberty) due to MRKH (another DSD) but they have XX chromosomes (and no testosterone related sporting advantage) so aren’t part of the sports DSDs discussion..

I don’t like it either (CAIS people seem to be taller than XX women and have the longer arm span to match) but I remain somewhat open minded about CAIS athletes pending further research.

5ARD is already a clear no (after all we’ve learned from Caster Semenya’s court case and the other 5ARD track athletes).

Exactly, you don’t need to measure anything. If you’re virilised, it’s obvious.

“But this has NOTHING to do with chromosomes !”

“the most recent woman we diagnosed with having XY chromosomes was 33,”

This patient’s lack of a uterus was because of their chromosomes - they have XY chromosomes so they should have developed as a male. Their male chromosomes meant that they didn’t develop female reproductive organs (ovaries, uterus). But their DSD meant their body didn’t complete the male development pathway in the way it should have, and their external genitalia developed as a vulva and vagina, instead of a penis.

but NO physiological response to testosterone so could fairly compete as a woman in sport.

As has come up frequently I don’t think this is true. A person with CAIS has a significant advantage in never having to deal with periods or any of the hormonal changes related to that. It’s not as much of an advantage as testosterone influenced body but it’s still a big advantage to never have to alter training or competition. Many athletes have spoken about how periods have ruined their chances at certain events. CAIS athletes never have to worry about this. There are links to potential increased injury risk related to periods. Not a risk for CAIS athletes.

I really don’t like the “XY is male, but CAIS is ok” argument.

Interesting also that the article seems to completely pass over the fact that there are many many signs of a person having gone through male puberty, and where a person is found to be XY those other signs would surely be the indicator that further testing was needed and could potentially be the things that are tested.

I would have thought that if we are at the stage of measuring penises then we know we are dealing with a male that has gone through male puberty and is virilising at least some testosterone. In my view affected people shouldn't be in the female category whatever the measurements.

XY people with DSDs whose bodies cannot respond to testosterone do not develop a masculine appearance at puberty.

It seems very unlikely that they would both be in their respective finals if they weren’t able to benefit from testosterone at all.

But as a general point, the chromosome cheek swab should be a screening test. Anyone who comes back with an XY would then require further investigation, but those with XX would not.

This would cut the testing costs mentioned in the article tremendously, especially as unscrupulous coaches would no longer be incentivised to scout for 5ARD kids and thus the percentage of athletes who fail the initial screening and require the more expensive tests would diminish over time.