Boxer Lin Yu-ting cleared to return after gender eligibility ruling

I am not taking about gender conformity at all. I don’t believe I have in the past either, have I ?

I am referring to male body cues and signs of masculinisation. Just as people have observed in Khelif. Q angles, musculature etc.

Why?

Lots of people ‘look masculine’ and of course that’s a highly subjective term and both historically and currently used as a negative against many women who do gender non-conforming things like take part in competitive sport, by people who think women = feminine. I dont think anyone who describes themselves as gender critical should talk about the appearance of an individual as a disqualifying factor in someone being a woman, unless they are in fact a sex conservative who thinks sex and behaviour should match in their own culturally preferred ways (which, to be clear, I am not).

They only have oestrogen deficiency if they have their gonads removed. Recommended post-puberty in adolescence or early adult-hood rather than earlier.

“Discussing who ‘looks more like a man’ is however exactly what I would like to get away from.”

Agree in theory. It may not be possible though if cases such as Yu-Ting start coming up.

I went searching too and found discussion about the height being estrogen deficiency.

If that is the case, there also maybe difference depending on when the person is diagnosed and if/when they receive estrogen.

You can see though that the usual GC statement that sex is recognised at birth therefore forms part of the legal argument for both CAIS and XY 5ARD to be categorised purely as female.

That only applies when sex can be recognised at birth.

The "Assigned at Birth" wording was specifically formulated to apply to, and only to, cases where sex at birth was ambiguous and could not be recognised. It has no place elsewhere but was deliberately popularised and appropriated by transactivists.

I agree.

I think it must be grim as you say, to be talked about even theoretically. But as knowledge builds, it would be better to have evidence either way.

I also think that part of discussions I have seen in the past pointed out that as training etc reaches that point where gains in performance are minuscule, any source of advantage is going to end up being discussed. Hence I have felt it is inevitable that there will end up being reviews and discussion.

María José Martínez-Patiño was on the 2003 IOC committee that agreed that male people who identified as women and who had had genital surgery could compete as women - what you might call the Renée Richards case. It seems very likely that her own experience of being constantly questioned, failing testing and sometimes barred from competing will heavily have influenced her take on the issue, but I don’t know what view she took at the time.

@Hedgehogforshort i personally believe that the trouble is not that there can’t be a hard line, it’s working out where the hard line should be. ‘End of’ doesn’t really cut it for me. I don’t myself see why competitors with CAIS and some forms of Swyer syndrome shouldn’t compete in the female category, while XY 5-ARD shouldn’t. You can see though that the usual GC statement that sex is recognised at birth therefore forms part of the legal argument for both CAIS and XY 5ARD to be categorised purely as female. What we will see of course is the disappearance of PAIS diagnoses in sport. But as I understand it it should be perfectly possible to define what CAIS actually is and to differentiate it from PAIS. Discussing who ‘looks more like a man’ is however exactly what I would like to get away from.

Cross-post :-) I found them - see my post just before yours.

CAIS athletes do out-perform XX athletes and are over-represented but it is not referred to as an "advantage" because, apparently, that term is defined in terms of androgen-driven out-performance.

I cannot find the reference. I read it a long time ago. At the moment, of course, there is no move to exclude CAIS athletes.

However, back to my point about the boundary of CAIS and PAIS, it could have also been a reference I read that had included PAIS as CAIS, too, and how in the past there was confusion. I have seen suggestions that this might have caused an ‘over representation.’

That is my point. If there is a test, can it reliably assess CAIS athletes versus PAIS.

and it may require future studies to accurately start assessing if there is or isn’t a physical advantage? There could also need to be studies to assess whether these athletes have an advantage due to not having any menstrual cycle. There may not be any advantage overall at all, it would be good to know this for certain.

After much faffing about with Grok I found out that using the term "advantage" in relation to CAIS creates confusion because in sports policy it refers specifically to androgen-driven performance differences in women's sport.

It was finally satisfied with this form of words to explain the over-representation of CAIS athletes in elite female sport:

"Whilst CAIS athletes do not have an androgen-driven advantage over XX athletes, they have a genetic predisposition to outperform XX athletes on average, related to taller stature and/or higher lean body mass from Y-linked genes."

Other info I got from Grok:

CAIS over-representation in elite female sports (incidence ~1/400–1/1000 vs general ~1/20,000–1/99,000), likely due to Y-linked traits like taller stature/lean body mass, not androgens.

Ref:
"Natural selection for genetic variants in sport: the role of Y chromosome genes in elite female athletes with 46,XY DSD"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25160863/

Named CAIS athletes at Olympic level (confirmed or reported):

• María José Martínez-Patiño (Spanish hurdler): Competed post-1985 chromosome test challenge; cleared for women's events (e.g., 1992 Barcelona Olympics eligible).

• Unnamed athletes (1996 Atlanta Olympics): 7–8 female athletes failed SRY/chromosome tests but had CAIS/androgen insensitivity; all cleared and allowed to compete.

No publicly named CAIS athletes beyond Martínez-Patiño have specific Olympic participation records disclosed; others remain anonymous due to privacy in historical testing.

Overrepresentation noted (1 in ~400–423 elite females vs. 1 in 20,000 general), but identities protected.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_verification_and_intersex_athletes_at_the_Olympic_Games

www.aaas.org/taxonomy/term/9/does-science-support-ban-female-athletes-high-testosterone-levels

See see we just end up arguing the toss about “marginal cases”

there are no margins, either you are male or female, short or tall, fat or slim. Muscular or not so.

We just end up in the world of the TRA’s if we have no hard line.

There is only two biological groups. Male and female. And they can be determined

End of

I do have sympathy for people who are encountering the many challenges of CAIS, and who feel very strongly about being included in the female category. I also get that it may feel pretty grim to feel talked about, especially when views are ill informed. However, I think the onus for people who find it upsetting is to step away, rather than seeking to shut down discussion. I think they’ll be others making their case.

CAIS athletes were over represented at the Olympics in female categories compared to in the general population.

Who were the CAIS athletes? I was only aware of the 5-ARD athletes.

I think the thing is that there has been an effort to shut down even discussion about CAIS advantage.

As I said up thread, this result may hasten what should have been something thoroughly investigated by now since it was observed that CAIS athletes were over represented at the Olympics in female categories compared to in the general population.

I think that some prioritisation to remove male people with transgender identities from the female category first and then male with clearly observable masculinisation. Even on MN FWR we have had some attempt to stop discussion about CAIS athletes. However, maybe this will wedge this discussion open.

Barry McGuigan isn't dead.

I suspect she meant Ricky Hatton.

Barry McGuigan isn't dead.

That’s interesting.

I wonder if certain genes carried by a Y chromosome link to certain traits that link to wanting to engage in sport / competition. If there are, should this mean that all those with a Y chromosome should be excluded even if they don’t have the advantage of male puberty.

For now, I’m leaning towards a policy where those with CAIS should be able to compete in the female category because I think the category is based on physical differences and CAIS doesn’t afford the male difference /advantage.

I hope that the additional testing/information was that this boxer has CAIS. Khelif was far more obviously male, which was, in part, why there was so much more criticism coming his way.

What would concern me would be if the argument made was never about testosterone advantage and was all about proving he’d genuinely been identified as female at birth, or something equally irrelevant. I know that would ensure transitioning males would be excluded, but would leave women no further forward with the problem of men with DSDs (and their deliberate selection by coaches looking for an easy win) which is, currently, a much larger problem.

While CAIS is supposed to ensure no testosterone advantage, there is already some evidence to suggest those with CAIS are still overrepresented in high level sports competitions.

I'm not saying boxing is amazing for your brain's health, it's an impact sport, but as an athlete you take risks with consent and capacity to make your own decisions; what I am saying is that a male punch is going to be much more harmful than a female's even if matched for weight/other categories being equal.

If DSD or others want to compete, fine, but make their category one for themselves, or, get in a ring/on a track with a bloke, and see how fair it is then. Oh no wait, they won't.

The ‘it isn’t safe for anyone’ is no reason at all to distract from the fact that a male person with the potential to have up to 160% or more punch power than a female competitor is then punching a female person with more delicate brain fibres in the head because a policy allows it.

There needs to be transparency about exactly what has happened in that challenge to allow a male boxer to compete.

The ‘it isn’t safe for anyone’ argument is a distraction and a deflection.

Two questions spring to mind. If Lin is being classified as female, precisely what critieria (tests) are being used to decide this? And is Khelif exactly the same, or is the claim that Lin is different to Khelif? But perhaps a more sensible and pragmatic view would be that, if in doubt about sporting advantage, these people with DSDs should not be allowed to compete in the female category. I realise the Guardian would think that terribly unfair.

These DSD s are so rare, and yet, what the chances that this tiny proportion of the population would contain so many world-class athletes (compared to women, that is). Baffling, isn' it?

That is a massive deflection, because men punch 162% harder than women, which combined with the fact that a woman's skull is thinner, means that it is extremely dangerous to have males boxing against females.
The moral aspects of boxing and safety has nothing to do with this thread.

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1392254407476142081

the human skull can be used to determine biological sex, particularly after puberty, with roughly 90% accuracy. Male skulls are generally larger, heavier, and more rugged, featuring prominent brow ridges and squarer jaws, while female skulls tend to be smaller, smoother, and more rounded.

Key Differences in Adult Skulls:
Brow Ridge (Glabella): Males have prominent, thick, and sloped brow ridges, whereas females have smoother, flatter, or absent ridges.
Forehead Shape: Males typically have a sloping, receding forehead, while females have a more vertical and rounded (bossing) forehead.
Eye Sockets (Orbits): Female eye sockets are generally rounder with sharper upper margins; male orbits are often squarer with blunt, rounded upper margins.
Jawbone (Mandible): Males have a square, wider chin and a more vertical jaw angle. Females have a more pointed chin and a more obtuse, sloped jaw angle.
Back of Skull (Nuchal Area): Males have a more defined, muscular, and rugged projection at the back of the head (external occipital protuberance) for muscle attachment.

Important Considerations:
Age: These distinctions are largely based on hormonal differences that develop after puberty, making it difficult to accurately sex juvenile skulls.
Method Reliability: While the pelvis is generally considered the most reliable indicator for sexing, the skull is the second most reliable, particularly when multiple features are analyzed.