Brave reporter undergoes inhumane sex test for sports. Brace yourselves.

I promise you that not everyone who disagrees with you had just misunderstood something.

Just to share with you all - one night on a mumsnet gender criticial thread made me feel anxious, less patient (sorry to some of you on that!) and just like… meaner and smaller.

I’m glad some of you seem to think you’ve found a kind of righteous anger after years of being told to be nice or kind, but I wish you’d directed it somewhere else instead of a tiny group of people who really aren’t affecting your lives or making you less safe (I know you think they are; they’re just not). You’re like people who’ve fallen for the small boats thing - an imagined bogeyman to fear and obsess over.

I’m going to ban myself commenting on a similar mumsnet thread again, as I don’t think it’s a space where people are able to engage in good faith anymore. It’s too obsessive.

I hope you all have ways to take care of yourselves - I think you’re doing each other a world of damage passing around and building up so much fear.

Why isn't he competing with in the men's category now?

Yeah, that why he was topless in swimming trunks. Because he thought he was female. 🙄

And the story changes.

We've gone from "she's definitely a woman and you're all ignorant bigots who don't understand science"
To "well, anyway even if he IS a man, you're all just mean for not feeling sorry for him"
O-kay!

This is the truth of it when you get right down to it

All the wailing and handwringing about DSDs and sex being complicated and a spectrum of mixed up chromosomes or whatever, is a smokescreen. In the end, it's just about shitting on women. We see you indeed.

Lots of people on trans Reddit, and X.

Invasive, because it reveals things (some) people don't want to be revealed, and dehumanising because, I suppose, it applies hard science, and test tubes, and verifiable data in respect of people's human experiences of what sex they think they are.

Tough shit.

Who says it’s ’invasive and dehumanising’? I only see that in reference to the tests referred to in Semenya’s book of an earlier time. No one is claiming the current test is that?

In 2000 I competed internationally in a sport as part of a female pair in an event that had a thousand individual competitors.There were so few women who were strong or brave enough to take it on.

We came second to last in the entire event. But we got medals because we were the only all women crew in our category that managed to do it.

Thinking about that now I’d be devastated if one of our competitors turned out to be a bloke. We worked and trained so hard.

Some leading geneticists argue that screening for the SRY gene oversimplifies biological sex and fails to account for natural genetic diversity and intersex variations.

I think you’ve misunderstood the point of the test(s) required to compete in the female category, which is only to determine and rule ineligible those who have had the advantage of male hormones and puberty.

Sport isn’t concerned with anything else as far as saying who’s a woman and who’s a man.

For its intended purpose, testing for the SRY gene and follow up enquiries is appropriate.

That’s as far as it goes. The female category is for those who haven’t had male mini-puberty or male adolescent puberty.

I’m struck by what Ross said, by the way, when he pointed out those are the things that give men an advantage. The presence or absence of a penis is irrelevant to performance in sport. So, for those who do want genital inspections, they won’t work. Presence or absence of male (or female) genitals don’t separate people into the classes that do and don’t have male advantage.

You have no real answer for how we can fairly include people with DSD in sports

Hang on a second.

Men's sport is competitive. There isn't any inclusivity going on. And men don't have to justify why they aren't inclusive. Because it's about which is the best.

Women's sport isn't allowed to be competitive. It has to justify why it's not inclusive. Why?

Why can't women's sport be competitive - for women?

If we have males entering women can't compete. So the whole purpose of sport, as it was designed for men, then doesn't exist. Women are just there for fun, not to be competitive or taken seriously as professionals. They are just there for the taking part.

Oh wait, they can't take part if enough DSD makes / trans identifying men decide they want to compete in women's competitions. They lose their entry space. And the professional income. And educational scholarships.

This is the ENTIRE point.

Either womens sport is aspirational to 50% of the population. Or it's just watching Greg down the park play netball because he feels like it. To hell with women who want to be taken seriously.

Just why do you want to center males in women's sport? Why aren't women's centred?

Indeed

Inclusive events can be introduced. But they will be specific events.

“You absolutely have NOT engaged in anyway with the points I’ve raised about a lack of scientific consensus that this test CAN prove sex in any useful way.”

Coming back to this. Because I don’t believe this is quite an accurate framing of the process.

The SRY screen (as I pointed out pages ago it is more accurately a screening process) only detects athletes who require further investigation. I don’t believe any one on this thread believes that someone with a positive result of the screening sample will not then undergo further investigation.

And I haven’t ‘engaged’ with it, because there are numerous posts on that thread I linked up that go through the history of screening and the papers on how it works.

Many people on this thread have also already discussed the screens for thread after thread when the decision was announced to use them.

No one produced any links to discredit their reliability in detecting those who needed further investigation then. If you have anything, link it up.

Sport.

Us and some women ages ago: Let's have a category for 50% of the population to make it as fair as possible for as many people as possible. This is for females only.

Idiots: But what about this minority group of males?

Us: What about them? They have mens sport. Men can work something out or they can have a third category.

Idiots: But that's not fair to this tiny number of males?

Us: And? Life's not fair, but women's sport is as fair as it can be for the people we are trying to centre in women's sport. Y'know women.

Idiots: But that's not fair! It's not that simple.

Us: I think you will find it is simple and fair for 50% of the population. Why are we trying to prioritise a teeny tiny number of men at the expense of 50% of the population.

Idiots: Because this group is super disadvantaged and should get special treatment.

Us: Why!? We are trying to centre women who always get sidelined in favour of males. Can't we just have a little bit of an opportunity.

Idiots: Wash waah waaaah. Stop being so mean and prejudiced. If they want something they should get it because they say so.

Us: How does that work? Are women not allowed to say what they want?

Idiots: See it's not a big deal to be kind

Us: Actually it is. We just want to do sport atbe competitive. Like men. Why are we supposed to put that aside just to be nice to males who aren't being very nice to us by not respecting the fact this really isn't a fair thing to allow males to enter and dominate womens sport just because they want to.

Idiots: You are so aggressive and talk in an unbecoming manner.

Us: Uh huh wat? You'd never say that to a man. Men are allowed to demand whatever they like and don't we just know it.

Idiots: Well cos science

Us: Flat earthing isn't science. It's woowoo bullshit just so men cheat.

Idiots: How dare you?!

Us: We dare quite a lot seeing as men can't be women. That's the point. We say no.

You have no real answer for how we can fairly include people with DSD in sports.

We could consider how we fairly include wheelchair users and blind people in sports as a clue how to answer that. It’s certainly appropriate to identify which people have DSDs to know how fairly to include them, and this test is not an inappropriate way to get that under way.

How is the fact of rare chromosomal abnormalities remotely relevant to the idea that men can be women if they want to?

My understanding is that nobody is trying to prove sex. They are trying to prevent individuals who have benefited from the circulation of testosterone in their system from competing alongside individuals who have had no such benefit. The way they do this is to test for the marker of sensitivity to testosterone.

World Athletics say that competing in the women's category is restricted to any individual who is:

• biologically female, or
• who is male genetically but has proven complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, or
• who has previously taken testosterone to develop male features but has foregone it for a period of at least 4 years (actual length of time decided by World Athletics)

I can't see that as being unfair.

Paralympians face reclassification every time their condition alters. The tests are often painful and the examinations can be humiliating (how bad are you really?). If they get reclassified to the next less severe band, they know they are likely to be the 'worst' in that band Vs the 'best' in the band they've come from.

It's the price of fair sport.

In the Telegraph article, Fiona Tomas writes:

Under new rules issued by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), all athletes wanting to compete in the female category, irrespective of sport, will have to do the test to participate in the 2028 Los Angeles Games. This effectively bans transgender athletes and those with differences in sex development (DSD) from women’s sport, marking a move away from testosterone suppression policies that were previously used to determine the eligibility of such athletes.

She should have said something like:

"This effectively bans male athletes from women’s sport."

She could have added:

"Female athletes who are transgender or have DSDs will still be eligible for women's sport, dispite misinformation to the contrary. Previous policies allowed some male athletes with transgender identities or DSDs to participate in women's sports if they suppressed their testosterone"

Again and again I read about transgender people or people with DSDs being banned or excluded from something or other, and invariably it's not true. I generally assume that the writer is an activist who either knows they're lying but don't have any honest arguments, or they are unthinkingly repeating what other activists have said.

I don't think Fiona Tomas, the Telegraph's women's sports reporter, is an activist, so I don't understand why she writes something so obviously untrue - it really undermines trust in her reporting.

It would be unfair and unjustified to descriminate against or exclude any athlete just because they are transgender or have a DSD. Fortunately, nobody as far as I know, is doing or proposing any such thing.

Agree.

I realised just how fucked up always repeating ‘be kind’ was when I was telling my tween at the time to think of how terrible a family life their bully had. I stopped myself in mid sentence and realised that it was not fucking kind to tell a child to accept harm because someone had hardships.

It is like all the pleas that these male people have hard lives. Well fuck!! Think of the female athletes they took the opportunities from.

There is nothing kind in allowing male people with any male pubertal advantages to access female sports. It is completely contrary, contradictory and it doesn’t even stand up to logical scrutiny.

”You absolutely have NOT engaged in anyway with the points I’ve raised about a lack of scientific consensus that this test CAN prove sex in any useful way.”

Why should anyone engage with a random point mentioned without evidence being linked to support it?

“You have no real answer for how we can fairly include people with DSD in sports.”

I have answered this. And I believe that my answer pretty close in line with the OIC sports review committee and other sporting federations.

You have yet to even answer the logic of why this particular group of male people get special treatment that other athletes do not get when they find that they can no longer compete in categories of sport they wish to.

Why should they get special treatment that no other group does?

“You believe sex is an absolute binary and will continue to do so despite any evidence to the contrary.”

I have not seen you post any expert evidence at all that sex cannot be reliably identified in human being by looking at their body formation around the gametes that the body would produce, or does produce or have never produced. I believe you mentioned genitalia, I didn’t.

If you have evidence to support your view that human beings cannot be categorised by sex category with modern testing, please link it up!

“You think you’re opened minded and scientific but you’re not.”

You are the person resorting to telling me what I believe of myself. Usually with insults attached. Well done in showing how kind you are.

Indeed. It’s all just bluster. We don’t have to take it seriously.

@Helleofabore "Emotional reasoning no longer convinces many people at all"

That's been one of the most freeing elements of all of this. Women are told since they are little girls to be quiet, sit down, be nice, keep calm, look after, BE KIND, nurture, give way to. And then the demands become intolerable. And you say "no".

And men who seem pleased to think that they have made us upset or scared, don't realise that actually they have allowed us the freedom to be angry.

It’s not emotional manipulation to point out when people are being unkind. I can see it’s upset you to hear it though.

I don’t think you care about women’s sport. You absolutely have NOT engaged in anyway with the points I’ve raised about a lack of scientific consensus that this test CAN prove sex in any useful way. You have no real answer for how we can fairly include people with DSD in sports. You believe sex is an absolute binary and will continue to do so despite any evidence to the contrary. You think you’re opened minded and scientific but you’re not.

Shall I remind you of the insults and emotional manipulation you have used on this thread just towards me?

I have just read back over the past pages, I think you are more concerned with being kind to a group of male people from reading your posts. And I don’t believe that you can evidence your position with anything but emotional reasoning, regardless of what you like to say you support.

It is actually irrelevant that you ‘have skin in the game’. It is absolutely fucking irrelevant if you cannot engage and discuss with evidence why a group of male people that have experienced any male pubertal advantages should be competing as a female person.

Emotional reasoning no longer convinces many people at all considering the evidence to support exclusion.

Ok!

Absolutely. But she is.

Well maybe she is. We’re all personally choosing to believe or not believe what people tell us about themselves aren’t we?