Views on androgen insensitivity and women’s sport participation

No. It wouldn't. It is best we keep it simple, cheap and non invasive.

You should not test for the tiny minority, you test for the majority. There is provision for that tiny minority, but they do not come first.

All the rest of your talk about periods, height is flim flam, designed to distract from the main issue.

Which is biological sex.

Why? SRY screening is relatively cheap. If there is no SRY gene present the person is female so no further tests are required.

First we test for the SRY gene - cheek swab, identifies sex.

Then if this come up as unusual, further testing will be undertake to establish other relevant issues.

Most importantly we start with biological sex.

That's what will happen with the sex screening tests that are being reintroduced. First stage is test for presence of SRY gene and then further tests if the gene is present.

If anyone has not read the links on this thread linked below, they might find them useful. Please do not add posts to the thread unless they are bringing evidence such as studies, expert opinion, statistics to the thread. Please do start a new discussion thread (or this one that OP has just started if relevant) to discuss any posts that you wish to discuss.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1

I think that in the future that considerations such as whether an athlete's body has the ability to go through menstrual cycles will have to be taken into account.

There is also the potential issue that has been suggested in the past, that athletes with CAIS, as a group, have a height advantage. We might have already had decisions on this if attention had not been diverted to the male athletes with masculinising DSDs and those male athletes with transgender identities.

Just because they have had no effect or the same testosterone effect as biological women, doesn't mean they have had no advantage from being male. A big one I can think of is the menstruation cycle. They don't have one. They don't have to juggle those hormones and the effect on performance, the time away from sport due to bleeding and pain, pregnancy, child care etc etc.

As we saw in the pool case It isn't just about physical advantage it's about overarching differences between the sexes and the advantages/disadvantages the two sexes have in life/lifestyle.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome as compared to partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS)

It’s still important to be honest and open about the fact they’re a biological male. This is important for their own health too.

From the little I understand though, the condition affects a lot. Women supposedly have more testosterone than oestrogen. This person won’t have any of that which may affect sports ability.

It may come down to the level of sports participation. If playing in a sport at a level that’s friendly etc it’s perhaps not an issue? (I don’t know the answer to that.)

But it is as you climb the levels. As you’re potentially taking a space away from a biological female athlete.

Athletes with CAIS are included in the female sports categories under the IOC regulations and other sporting federations.

The athletes excluded from female sports are those athletes with testes that produce testosterone and bodies that are able to process that testosterone to any degree to masculinise. For instance, athletes with partial androgen insensitivity are excluded.

There may come a time in the future when those athletes with CAIS are excluded. There have been studies that show they have been over represented in the female categories of sports at the Olympics in the past. I am sure there will be future studies along those lines and decisions will need to be made.

CAIS has been discussed on FWR for years.