Save female sports evidence thread

SEX TESTING THEORY FROM DR EMMA HILTON

There are some great graphics on these tweets if you go to them.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1821903707635618276.html

OK, science geeks. Sex testing and sport.

There are many people spreading misinformation about the reliability of sex testing, repeating arguments made for its abolition some 25 years ago.

I don’t know if they have noticed that we’ve undergone something of a genetics revolution over the past few decades

So let’s look at some chromosomes.

Historically, chromosomes were analysed by adding a chemical dye to cells and looking at their shape and size. Given that most animals have two copies of each chromosome, the pairs could be lined up by matching their shape and size.

These are chromosomes stained with a dye called hemotoxylin. I still use this dye in the lab today.

Nettie Stevens discovered sex chromosomes in the early 1900s, after noting that female worms had twenty big chromosomes while male worms had nineteen big chromosomes and plus a small one.

Further, she noted that Worm Sperm either had ten big chromosomes or nine big chromosomes plus a small chromosome.

She reasoned that the small chromosome carried by some sperm makes male babies, while the sperm carrying the tenth big chromosome made female babies.

Brilliant woman, but her discoveries were overshadowed by the male scientists of the era, of course.

In the ensuing decades, improvements in sample preparation, the types of dyes used, and the optics of looking at tiny samples, meant scientists could start to score chromosomes not just by size and shape, but by the pattern the dyes made on each pair of chromosomes. This made the tedious work of matching up pairs much easier.

In the 1940s, Murray Barr discovered a tightly-packed ball of chromosome material hanging around the edges of the female cell nucleus. He named this the Barr Body.

He also developed, in the 1950s, the cheek swab as a way of sampling human chromosomes.

In the 1960s, Mary Lyon discovered that in female mammals, who have two copies of the X chromosome, one of those Xs is shut down. We now know that this process is needed to regulate the amount of active X chromosome genes a cell can handle. Males, with only one X, don’t need to do this.

The tightly-packed ball of chromosome material discovered in the 1940s - the Barr body - is this inactivated X chromosome. The process of packing the X ball is called Lyonization. It is this process of shutting down one X chromosome that gives us beautiful (female) lion-like creatures.

The process is also important in understanding how sex-linked genetic diseases affect females differently. Including in my own research.

It was soon realised that looking for Barr bodies - which give a very intense and obvious dye signal – was a quick way of checking what sex an animal was.

Including, in 1968, human animals playing female sport.

Females with two Xs have this bright dye spot, males with only one X don’t. Simple, right?

But some males have an extra X (XXY, Klinefelter Syndrome) and they pack their second X down, just like females, giving a positive signal on the Barr body test. And some females only have one X (X0, Turner Syndrome) and no Barr body.

The Barr body test could tell you about second or extra X chromosomes, but this wasn’t the best way to understand the sex of the person.

In 1992, sex testing sport switched to the more accurate method of trying to find a gene on the Y chromosome called SRY. This gene is considered a master switch in male development.

The test was done in a chemical reaction (the polymerase chain reaction, for the geeks) to rapidly replicate large amounts of the SRY gene from a DNA sample, which could then be detected by routine DNA gel analysis. If SRY isn’t in the sample, you don’t get any replication.

Can anyone take a guess at the sex of the fetus in the image below?

But, of course, some males may have the SRY gene but they do not develop as a healthy male. That is, they have a disorder of sex development.

In 1999, sex testing was abolished, given the unusual results popping in the female athletes, the potential for trauma in those athletes, and the prevailing opinion that having a male XY DSD probably didn’t matter in female sport.
Of course, today, that prevailing opinion from over two decades ago has been overturned. We understand more about sports performance, male advantage, and what anatomical features contribute to it.

We have far easier and cheaper ways of looking at chromosomes and DNA, and we have stronger ethical frameworks regarding genetic testing. The “bad old days” that the International Olympic Committee evoke to obstruct sex testing that would protect the female category is a red herring.
Today, testing for sex is routine. Our sampling is better, and we can find sex chromosomes from really small amounts of suboptimal material. As many mother’s will know, we can find fetal sex chromosomes from Mum’s blood sample. Our dyes are better. Our imaging is better.

Forget dyes that showed us size and shape, forget dyes that give us patterns of bands, and start looking at light-emitting molecular dyes that bond to specific genes on specific chromosomes instead (and light up two green Xs and one red SRY). Look at how a computer can read those signals.

I mean, even this Beetle Lady can do it ;)

The flashes of red light you see? That’s from my published research, flagging an X chromosome gene that underpins a sex-linked genetic disease that is lethal in male fetuses.

Forget those gels of a single rapidly replicated gene and start thinking about putting those light-emitting flags into the chemical reaction instead. The more replication, the brighter the light signal. And why not add multiple genes to the same process. And trust me, a light detector can see things your eye cannot.

See those differently coloured lines? They are different pieces of DNA being rapidly replicated in the same sample.

And why stop at whether a gene is there or not? Why not look at the sequence of a gene? Gone are the painstaking days of moving down a radioactive image with a ruler. I can get a computer to read a gene sequence for me in a few days for a few pounds. And even this is by a fairly cheap and old-fashioned method.

In 2003, the Human Genome Project was completed. This was first full sequencing of all the genes (plus everything else in between) on all the chromosomes in a human being.

It took a global effort 13 years to complete, and cost $billions.

Today, not so much. We can sequence the entire gene set of a human being in a matter of weeks for $hundreds.

The IOC is fervently hoping that renewed calls for sex testing sport quietly go away.

Ironically, they probably will. Because now on the horizon of this genetic revolution is, quite simply, standard screening of whole genomes in newborn babies.

No longer will we have to trust a midwife to take a guess.

Tweets are here.

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1821903707635618276

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE - A REALLY QUICK ONE FROM DR HILTON

"Having male biology is not simply another type of advantage athletes have, it’s an advantage we have created categories around. We all seem to agree that having a woman’s category is desirable and necessary, we all know it’s because men are, as a group, bigger and stronger etc, and that without protection from male advantage, women wouldn’t win in athletics sports. So it’s perfectly coherent to argue that anyone with this type of advantage - male advantage - is ineligible for the category designed to exclude it."

11th August 2024

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1822649897918861380

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE / PHELPS GAMBIT / PHELPS ARGUMENT

Here is another explanation of why the Phelps Gambit is weak.

https://x.com/Scienceofsport/status/1820462042765001041

Ross Tucker
5 August 2024

Yeah, poor old Phelps became the poster child for this illogical argument that his advantages are the same as those of males. I'll try to explain why this is such poor thinking. First, Phelps' advantages are not category-crossing. That is, there is no category for short arms, and there is no category for small feet, or high lactate producers etc. So we have decided, for better or worse, not to create a category for people without Attribute X. And thus, when a person has X, they shouldn't be excluded, so there's no basis to disqualify Phelps.

Now, one could have a debate over whether we SHOULD think about creating a category for small feet or short arms. If we did this, then Phelps' supposed advantages would become 'outside of category', and we'd say that he's not allowed to swim in the protected category, right?

But we don't need to do this, because the advantages that he has are tiny compared to what male advantage does to performance. Phelps wins by 0.5%. Males win by 12% (compared to females). By scale, then, these advantages are orders of magnitude different.

It's also a massive oversimplification to say that Phelps won because his arms are long or that he produces less lactate. They're daft, incorrect attributions anyway. And finally, females also have some of these advantages - there are women who produce less lactate, or have long arms.

They don't make up for the absence of male advantage. So they're totally different situations. Fundamentally, what sport is trying to reward are those exceptional individuals within categories. We actually celebrate these advantages, they make sport what it is, no?

But we need to rule out some other advantages - size/mass in boxing, age in all sport - because otherwise the things that do NOT matter overwhelm the things that do. Phelps physiology matters - it's why he wins gold medals. Katie Ledecky, though, also has physiology that deserves gold.

It's just she doesn't have male advantage as well. And that's the point - "as well". They are equally great swimmers, but within their categories. The only way around this is to say that we should create a category because Advantage X is so large it also overwhelms the result.

But it doesn't - as mentioned, by scale, what Phelps has over males is tiny compared to what males have over females. Put another way - the fastest swimmer with small feet or shorter arms (whatever that means) is not beaten by thousands of longer armed, bigger footed swimmers!

So I hope I've not laboured that or explained it clumsily. To sum up, Phelps is a bad counter point. So is height in basketball (there's no "short people NBA, only 180cm or under" category).

Rather think age, weight and disability class, and ask if the attribute, X, devalues the things we actually want to reward, or whether it's part of it. Phelps' advantages are part of the excellence. Male advantage is not - being male is NOT a talent, and as such, shouldn't be part of the mix. What Phelps has, those are different.

COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE / PHELPS GAMBIT / PHELPS ARGUMENT

Here is a good explanation. It has links to relevant information embedded so it is best to see it on twitter.

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1374331296143581186

But here is some of it:

Phelps' wingspan:height ratio is 1.04. It's straightforward to find other males with the same ratio who are slower than Phelps in some strokes, but who are faster in others. e.g. Matt Grevers. Ratio 1.04, slower freestyle than Phelps, faster backstroker than Phelps. Interestingly, despite the same wingspan:height ratio, he's, in absolute numbers, generally bigger than Phelps.

What you never find is a female with the same wingspan:height ratio who is there or thereabouts compared with Phelps. Missy Franklin has a ratio of 1.03, yet is over 10% slower than Phelps.

It's almost like wingspan:height ratio isn't discriminatory in the pool. Even absolute wingspan or absolute height isn't discriminatory.

And there's a very simple reason. When you select, on national or international levels, for athletes that are good in a particular discipline, you will tend to pull through an entire group who all share the general advantage (in this case, swimmers are tall with long arms). Phelps, with height (not the tallest) and wingspan (not the widest, nor the biggest ratio) is, for sure, built to be a better swimmer than almost every other person in the world. But his body shape is not particularly extraordinary within that group of competitive swimmers.

To argue that his advantage is extraordinary within the entire male population, sure. Well, I wouldn't go with unfair, but's a real advantage. But he doesn't race against the male population. He races against other males who are likely to share the same advantage.

This is why The Phelps Gambit (trademark pending) is nonsense, and immediately flags that the person asserting it has read numerous MSM stories about the glorious physique of Phelps (and he was glorious, absolutely), without applying any deeper analysis.

Men can have long arms. Women can have long arms. Men with long arms are better swimmers than women with long arms.

The above diagram is an excellent explainer also of why posters refer to looking at the knees of athletes.

Female knees are usually quite different to male knees.

ONE OF THE Q-ANGLE DIAGRAMS & A POLL

If you believe in fair competition, Emily Bridges should not be racing Laura Kenny

Owen Slot, The Times, 29th March 2022

https://archive.is/u4oSa

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3081c8c0-af7c-11ec-8b8c-0207c0fd6104?shareToken=dfc4c5b36b407a8e0ccc2133e718b121

"Biomechanically, though, she still retains distinct advantages. The athletes she will be competing against have naturally wider hips. For the purposes of powering a bicycle, the crucial element here is that they will have a wider angle between the hips and the knees — this means their quads do not work so efficiently in transferring power."

There is also a poll

Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete with women?

(also not necessarily clear as it doesn't clarify transitioned females)

7 131 votes with 98% saying no

ATHLETES OPINIONS ON MALE INCLUSION IN FEMALE SPORTS - BRITISH TRIATHALON

www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/06/british-triathlon-creates-open-category-for-transgender-athletes-to-compete-at-all-levels

The significance here is that British Triathlon polled members and 80% supported female only category.

Here is the rundown of the policy by Sean Ingle, 2022

Triathlon has become the first sport in the UK to ban transgender athletes from racing in the female category at elite and grassroots level after deciding that “fairness of competition is paramount”.

Under British Triathlon’s new policy, which kicks in on 1 January 2023, transgender athletes over the age of 12 will now have to compete in an “open category” for “all individuals including male, transgender and those non-binary who were male sex at birth”.

A second “female category” will apply only “for those who are the female sex at birth”. The policy will apply to any race that is timed or has prizes

Link to policy

www.britishtriathlon.org/britain/documents/about/edi/transgender-policy-effective-from-01-jan-2023.pdf

CYCLING POLICY FOR TRANSGENDER ATHLETES - JUNE 2022

assets.ctfassets.net/761l7gh5x5an/4EopPD4g1xjd0aNct2SCPt/8987aec0f5a3bc020411dd2bf8cfea7e/Transgender_athletes_in_cycling_June_2022.pdf

The UCI document regarding the regulations they have brought in.

T to be 2.5 nmol / 2 years

PUBLIC OPINION ON MALE ATHLETES COMPETING IN FEMALE SPORTS -UK

Survey research 2022 released on the attitudes about trans people in UK.

www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/

If this is not live anymore, the links to search for in archive sites are :

www.moreincommon.org.uk/our-work/research/britons-and-gender-identity/

for the report analysis

www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/p5uln04a/britons-and-gender-identity-data-tables.pdf

For the tables.

Here are some articles about the research.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/4d010462-ece3-11ec-8821-d2e916a7eab3?shareToken=3725b577b2d58b381a2773f04ce1f860

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/16/britons-not-bitterly-polarised-over-trans-equality-research-finds

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/16/twitter-trans-rights-gender-identity-report?CMP=fb_cif&fbclid=IwAR2_XRnalnvFUY51NI8zeZfVbDzWxC49mT44LtHb1sV5oJ1SzW48dzoJ4_g

Quick conclusions:

only 19% think TW should be able to participate in women’s sport
Only 24% think male bodied TW should be able to use women’s changing rooms
only 29% think male bodied TW should be able to use women’s toilets

THE IMPACT OF MALE INCLUSION ON FEMALE SPORTS

Fairplay for women have released this report as follows.

For years women and girls have been facing unfair, and sometimes unsafe, sport because of trans inclusion – which means male inclusion in women’s teams, events and changing rooms.

and

The scale of the problem, and its effect on women and girls, has been concealed by the fear around this issue. A culture of intimidation and silencing has forced women to keep quiet or walk away. This is not inclusion, it’s female exclusion.

Fair Play For Women has heard personal reports from across 35 sports in the UK. From these, we have compiled around 50 personal testimonies representing 25 sports. We have protected their identities because they are worried about reprisals in their sport, or about the possible impact on relationships or on their jobs. Given that women have lost their jobs for expressing opinions about this, they are probably right to be cautious.

Our report gives them a voice. This, the first ever report on the impact of trans inclusion in the UK, shows a widespread problem, affecting many women and girls all over the country, at all levels, from juniors to masters and at all levels of competition and participation. Women and girls are being put at risk and their legitimate concerns disregarded. Their stories debunk the claims that this is a small problem, affecting only a few, and that it does no harm. They include big sports like football, athletics, swimming and cycling, and contact sports like judo, American football, ice hockey and roller-derby.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/new-report-how-trans-inclusion-in-sport-is-harming-women-and-girls/

RE: COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF 5ARD FROM THE CAS FINDING IN SEMENYA'S CASE

This is an interesting quote Ross Tucker has clipped from the CAS finding.

The text lifted from the photo says:

Because they are "biologically indistinguishable.. in all relevant respects". athletes with 5-ARD experience the same ergogenic effect from these physiological changes as males without DSD experience. The only material physical difference between 5-ARD athletes and male athletes without DSD is "the size and shape of their external genitals", which has no impact on athletic performance.

While no 5-ARD athlete has yet won a women's event by a margin of 10-12%, this fact has nothing to do with their condition. Rather, it reflects the fact that, "the particular [5-ARD] athletes we have seen thus far are not as good as the best males. Like many other (non-elite) males, they still beat the very best biological females, just by a smaller margin."

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/1722006033491513584?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

His tweet says:

“It's interesting that this came up in the CAS hearing, too. World Athletics had kind of tap danced and skirted around it in the Chand case, but when Semenya played this card at CAS, World Athletics responded, and point 289 of the CAS decision captures the conclusion:”

HOW MCKINNON / IVY ARGUES USING PRONOUNS TO GET INCLUSION IN SPORT

THIS NEEDS A VPN SET TO THE USA TO SEE THE VIDEO

https://news.sky.com/story/trans-cyclist-rachel-mckinnon-defends-her-right-to-race-in-womens-competitions-11838131

Trans cyclist Rachel McKinnon defends her right to race in women's competitions

By Martha Kelner
Sunday 20 October 2019

Trans athlete McKinnon will race to defend her sprint title at the Masters track cycling championships in Manchester on Saturday.

And then

"All my medical records say female," she said. "My doctor treats me as a female person, my racing licence says female, but people who oppose my existence still want to think of me as male."

"There's a stereotype that men are always stronger than women, so people think there is an unfair advantage. By preventing trans women from competing or requiring them to take medication, you're denying their human rights."

Asked if she accepted it is possible that transgender women retained a physical advantage over cis female competitors (the term used to describe someone who identifies as the same gender they were assigned at birth), McKinnon replied: "Is it possible? Yes it is possible. But there are elite track cyclists who are bigger than me."

"There is a range of body sizes and strength, you can be successful with massively different body shapes. To take a British example, look at Victoria Pendleton, an Olympic champion with teeny tiny legs."

"In many Olympic disciplines the gap in performance is bigger between first and eighth in a single sex event than it is between the first man and the first woman."

and then

It is one of the most politically charged and sensitive issues around - but asked whether trans inclusion was more important than retaining a category for women in sport, McKinnon replied: "I think what your asking me is, 'Is it more important that trans people are included, than it is to retain fairness in sport?'

"My point is that trans inclusion is fairness, it is unfair to exclude trans women. This is much bigger than sport, it's a proxy for all of trans inclusion in society. Talk of bathrooms has switched into sport by people who don't care about sport."

In the video, McKinnon says "if you think that transwomen are men are men, then you think that there is an unfair advantage."

and my point about the pronouns comes from this quote:

at around 37 seconds into the video: "We care about sport, it is central to society. If you want to say, 'well, I believe you're a woman for all of society, except this massive central part that is sport, then, that is not fair. Fairness is the inclusion of transwomen."

In this video and article, McKinnon uses the:

Unfair to not think of us as female since people 'accept us as female elsewhere'.
The 'I don't always win, therefore I don't have a competitive advantage fallacy'
The 'Phelps Gambit' fallacy - range of body sizes, and shape etc
Elite male's advantage should not be used for all levels to exclude male people
Questions sex categorisation anyway
The 'not many transwomen in the Olympics anyway' fallacy

PUBLIC OPINION ON WHETHER MALES SHOULD COMPETE IN FEMALE SPORTS CATEGORIES FROM AUSTRALIA

Especially for those who continue to believe that the majority of the world's population are fully supportive of the demands from trans people. Rather than that many of the world's population is supportive of some of the demands of trans people but have limits. 50,000 Australians filled in this survey.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/all-the-questions-in-one-place-from-great-aussie-debate/news-story/ca8ab531382816ec97a4151b9088fab7

18. Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in women’s sport?
No = 82.6%
It depends on the sport = 8.2%
I don’t know = 4.9%
Trans women are women = 4.2%

40. Do you share your gender pronouns in your email signature or in social media profiles?
No = 48.2%
No, but respect others’ pronouns = 28.2%
No, it is too confusing = 11.2%
Yes, but I don’t care what others do = 5.3%
Yes, and I appreciate when others do = 4.9%
Prefer not to say = 1.7%
My workplace doesn’t allow it = 0.5%

MALE CHILDREN SPORTS ADVANTAGE

Sex Differences in Track and Field Elite Youth

Mira A. Atkinson, Jessica J.James, Meagan E.Quinn, Jonathon W. Senefeld andSandra K. Hunter

https://sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/324/version/419

RESULTS: Males ran faster than females at every age in the 100, 200, 400 and 800 m (P<0.001). When combining all running events, the sex difference (%) was 4.0 ± 1.7% between 7-12 years and increased to 6.3 ± 1.1% at 13 years, and 12.6 ± 1.8% at 18 years (P<0.001). Similarly, males jumped higher and further than females at every age (P<0.001). For long jump, the sex difference was 6.8 ± 2.8% between 7-12 years, increasing to 8.5 ± 1.7% at 13 years, and 22.7 ± 1.4% at 18 years (P<0.001). For high jump, the sex difference was 5.3 ± 5.2% between 7-12 years, increasing to 10.3 ± 2.4% at 14 years, and 18.4 ± 2.04% at 18 years (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION:Prior to puberty in elite youth track and field athletes, there is a small but consistent sex difference, such that males run faster and jump higher and further than females. The sex difference in performance was event dependent and increased significantly from ~12 years for running and 13-14 years in jumping events.

MORE INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF SEX TESTING BY LINDA BLADE

I just found this and it goes through my earlier post about the IOC timeline:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-dystopian-history-of-sex-testing

(Note: it is saved in archive.is too but also archive.md/F5HFc )

How the International Olympic Committee (IOC) failed women by undermining sex-based eligibility in sports.

There are four key moments when the IOC failed women in this regard.

MOMENT 1: The Decision to Stop Sex Verification (1999)
MOMENT 2: The Stockholm Consensus (2003)
MOMENT 3: The IOC Transgender Consensus (2015)
MOMENT 4: The IOC Framework on Fairness, Inclusion and Non-Discrimination (2021)

RE: IMANE KHELIF & LIN YU-TING

What the IBA said

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

This part is relevant

'On 24 March 2023, IBA disqualified athletes Lin Yu-ting and Imane Khelif from the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships New Delhi 2023. This disqualification was a result of their failure to meet the eligibility criteria for participating in the women’s competition, as set and laid out in the IBA Regulations. This decision, made after a meticulous review, was extremely important and necessary to uphold the level of fairness and utmost integrity of the competition.'

and

'This test conclusively indicated that both athletes did not meet the required necessary eligibility criteria and were found to have competitive advantages over other female competitors.'

So, the statement is really in two parts:
Not xx
Found to have physical advantages

Athletes that don't meet the 'required eligibility criteria' for the IBA's female category is quite simple. They state in their regulations, that female competitors are those who are XX.

p9 on the IBA Technical Competition Rules,

www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/20240303-IBA-Technical-Competition-Rules-v7-clean.pdf

These competitors have also been found to have competitive advantage. The only way for that to be true is if those male athletes have gone through puberty.

I also believe this statement shows that the IBA certainly also had in mind to make allowances for boxers who were male but with CAIS. Hence they have used two claims here to explain the exclusion of these male athletes. Neither of which has been directly addressed or refuted by the IOC.

The IBA also restated their position

https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-reaffirms-the-position-and-removal-of-boxers-from-all-events/

ABOUT IOC INCLUSIVITY PRIORITISED OVER FAIRNESS

Here is one reminder of what Budgett said about male inclusion:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/29/ioc-praises-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-ahead-of-transgender-athletes-olympic-debut

And while Budgett appeared to accept that Hubbard had an advantage from going through male puberty, he also stressed that inclusivity was an important factor too.

“There are lots of aspects of physiology and anatomy, and the mental side, that contribute to an elite performance, and it’s very difficult to say, ‘yes, she has an advantage because she went through male puberty,’ when there’s so many other factors to take into account,” he said.

“It’s not simple. I think each sport has to make their own assessment depending on the physiology of that sport, so that they can ensure that there is fair competition, but also the inclusion of everyone – whether they’re male or female – so they are able to take part in the sport they love.”

and then

“There is a lot of disagreement across the whole world of sport and beyond on this issue of eligibility,” admitted Budgett. “Everyone agrees transgender women are women. But it’s a matter of eligibility for sport, and particular events, and it really has to be very sport-specific.

“One of the reasons there is no new framework published yet is not just because of the difficulty in coming to any consensus,” he added. “It’s because it would have been inappropriate to come out with new guidelines just before the Olympics. There will be a new framework to help individual sports, and we’re working very closely with them, but it’s not published yet.”

IOC 2015 COMMITTEE DECISION TO ALLOW TRANSGENDER MALES TO COMPETE WITHOUT SURGERY

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

In this spirit, the IOC Consensus Meeting agreed the following guidelines to be taken into account by sports organisations when determining eligibility to compete in male and female competition:

1. Those who transition from female to male are eligible to compete in the
male category without restriction.

2. Those who transition from male to female are eligible to compete in the
female category under the following conditions:
2.1. The athlete has declared that her gender identity is female. The
declaration cannot be changed, for sporting purposes, for a minimum
of four years.
2.2. The athlete must demonstrate that her total testosterone level in serum
has been below 10 nmol/L for at least 12 months prior to her first
competition (with the requirement for any longer period to be based on
a confidential case-by-case evaluation, considering whether or not 12
months is a sufficient length of time to minimize any advantage in
women’s competition).
2.3. The athlete's total testosterone level in serum must remain below 10
nmol/L throughout the period of desired eligibility to compete in the
female category.
2.4. Compliance with these conditions may be monitored by testing. In the
event of non-compliance, the athlete’s eligibility for female competition
will be suspended for 12 months.

The evidence they considered was from Harper and is discussed here:
https://nequals8.com

And some of the very same people from 1999 are on the list for this decision too.

IOC 2004 TRANSGENDER POLICY CHANGE WITH SURGERY

2004 IOC announcement that they would allow males to compete with surgical ‘reassignment’.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1

The ‘committee’ for this was: ( note, some of these people also were involved in the stopping of sex testing based on the indignity for male people with DSDs, though they refer to them as women as per the Nature article upthread Gender verification of female athletes)

Prof. Arne Ljungqvist (SWE) - Prof. Odile Cohen-Haguenauer (FRA) - Prof. Myron Genel (USA) - Prof. Joe Leigh Simpson (USA) - Prof. Martin Ritzen (SWE) - Prof. Marc Fellous (FRA) - Dr Patrick Schamasch (FRA)

The group recommends that individuals undergoing sex reassignment from male to female after puberty (and vice versa) be eligible for participation in female or male competitions, respectively, under the following conditions:

-Surgical anatomical changes have been completed, including external genitalia changes and gonadectomy

-Legal recognition of their assigned sex has been conferred by the appropriate official authorities

-Hormonal therapy appropriate for the assigned sex has been administered in a verifiable manner and for a sufficient length of time to minimise gender-related advantages in sport competitions.

In the opinion of the group, eligibility should begin no sooner than two years after gonadectomy.

It is understood that a confidential case-by-case evaluation will occur.
In the event that the gender of a competing athlete is questioned, the medical delegate (or equivalent) of the relevant sporting body shall have the authority to take all appropriate measures for the determination of the gender of a competitor.

A VIEW ON HOW MALE ATHLETES GOT TO COMPETE IN THE PARIS OLYMPICS 2024

Just to recap how we got here (by me, Helleofabore)

1999 - From what I gather, from the Nature article posted up thread, is that a campaign group successfully convinced the IOC in the late 90s to prioritise inclusion. Because of what they position was the human rights violation of these male athletes with DSDs suffering indignities during testing and the outcomes of that testing.

So in the 1999 the OIC removed testing. 82% of female athletes wanted testing to remain.

Ie. My understanding is that the group campaigned that any male with a Difference of Sex Development that had been incorrectly registered as 'female' on their passport was to never be sex tested by the IOC again and allowed to compete as if they were female, regardless of whether they had gone through male puberty.

www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11

2004 - Then in 2004 they allowed male people who surgically removed their testes to compete in female competition. Because once you allow one group of male people in, you must equally allow the other in or you are discriminating against transgender people.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1

2015 -Then in 2015, a campaign group including Harper, using Harper’s flawed study (see nequals8.com web site) convinces the IOC that it is unfair discrimination to exclude any male with a transgender identity describing themselves as a woman. The IOC changes the policy to allow them.

https://nequals8.com

https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes

https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

2016 -Then came the Rio trio in the female 800m and we start to see the testosterone suppression of the male people with DSDs come in. Semenya takes this to court in 2019. Appealed 2020. The evidence presented confirmed 5ARD and testosterone of 21 nmol/L.

2021 - 2020 Tokyo games held in 2021 was the testosterone suppressed games. Hubbard, a late 40 something male in female event where next youngest was probably a decade and a half younger, shines light on the issue.

The IOC reacts by announcing a review.

The new guidelines released Nov 2021 devolve responsibility for policy to each discipline’s international federation. ie. They force the sporting federations to make the hard decisions that the IOC refuse to make.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf#_ga=2.219716894.621299853.1686571450-594927581.1678187184

They also reaffirm that 'inclusivity' is their over all priority. They say that safety is as well, but this is clearly contradictory when you consider boxing as an example.

The IOC is clear that they RECOGNISE that the inclusion of male athletes will be UNFAIR but their priority is inclusion. Richard Budgett said this.

The federations then develop their own policies. that have done this are : FINA, WA, UCI, IBA and WR. FIFA for instance announced a review years ago and done nothing. IBA announced their new policy in 22/23.

The WA have even stated that their new guidelines for the Olympics immediately excluded 13 males with DSDs with testosterone advantage from the competitions until those 13 male athletes chose to reduce their testosterone to 2.5 nmol/L for 2 years. 13 just in athletics competitions alone! (By the way, this reduction has already been shown to not eliminate unfair male advantage, but this is where we are at the moment.)

By the IOC removing the IBA from organising the boxing, the IOC left boxing only with the IOC inclusive guidelines.

So, we know from the announcement by Budgett from IOC in November 2021 that fairness was a lower priority to inclusion. It was along the lines of ‘we know it is unfair to include male people with pubertal advantage, but inclusion is our aim.’

And the IOC and other organisations still claim that Semenya is a 'female with naturally high testosterone' to this day. Despite the world being easily able to find the evidence presented to the CAS that Semenya is MALE with 5-ARD and had tested with a testosterone level of 21nmol/L. NO female has that level and is healthy. They are likely to be gravely ill.

That is where we are now.

13 MALE PEOPLE WITH DSDs JUST IN ATHLETICS IN 2023.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900

"Coe said this will impact 13 DSD athletes, seven (55%) of whom compete in running events above a mile, with six (45%) in sprinting events below 400m."

This is just a peak for Harper’s new study of just Bridges.

twitter.com/runthinkwrite/status/1621072256846950400?s=46&t=ig4wy4ZxTb223nzt6s9t9Q

These are the slides released by Harper on Bridges performance. There is an increase in performance that correlates to the training effort. And when training drops so does performance.

The IOC paid a lot of money for this.