Views on androgen insensitivity and women’s sport participation

I've already stated above that imo no CAIS person should be in women's sport because it's a judgement call whether they are C or P, not a scientific categorisation.

I don't know, but as they are male, they cannot compete in a category for females.

The person in question was raised as a girl by their parents, and was diagnosed at 4 years old. To be even tested for a DSD there must have been something anatomically unusual - most likely a micro penis and no visible vaginal opening. The parents were most likely advised that Jackie was actually male but to continue to raise them as female, and surgery eventually ensued. That was a very common pathway for boys born with CAIS. He claims to have grown breasts, and that anyone with CAIS does. That’s not strictly true. He may have started to develop breasts as the testosterone produced by his testes would have caused aromatisation and breast development. But as he had his testes removed at 15 these would have not developed further - in order to keep his breasts he has to take female hormones.
Jackie has been socialised as a female. That doesn’t actually make him female.

If they are male, it makes no sense to include them in any category specifically for females based on bodily function, such as sports.

The issue isn't that they are insensitive to the effects of testosterone; it is because they don't have a female body. A female body is not just a dysfunctional version of a male body.

Sports are based on fair competition; the variants should be within the normal range of that sex, not trying to compare a dysfunctional male body to a hyper-functional female body.

If someone with CAIS would like to compete in sport, then they can still do that, but their results will be within their own category and should not be included in the female range.

Removing male body parts doesn't make you female.

A female body is not just a dysfunctional and weak male body.

Go ahead and do sports but the results will be their own category as they are a man with a disability rather than a functional woman.

If they have CAIS then they are male.

My argument isn't around whether CAIS have an advantage; it is that they are mischaracterised as female when they have a male body.

Females are the sex whose body is organised around the production of the large, immobile gametes. Someone with CAIS is a person whose body is supposed to have developed around the production of the small, motile gametes, but became dysfunctional. You are simply not comparing the same thing and in sport that cannot be seen as fair competition based on a few observable characteristics.

For example, Simone Biles is a female who is 29 years old. Her height and competition weight is in the range of the average 11 year olds. We wouldnt think it would be a fair competition if she competed in a junior competition.

If they have XY chromosomes, they are male- just not one that has undergone male puberty.

Their dysfunction in their male body's ability to undergo normal puberty does not put them into the category of female.

Therefore, they cannot be included in a category that specifically tests the functionality of one female against another female.

Again, just because you are dysfunctional in one category does not immediately put you into the other one.

Women are not dysfunctional men. Not for sport or anything else. We are not substitutes for men; our bodies have a different structure and purpose. This is not about any advantage or lack of advantage; this is about a person who is dysfunctionally male. Sport is quite clear, as it is functional female bodies competing against other female bodies.

Personally, I am a bit more ambivalent about female toilets for this person. As you said, they don't have the male strength advantage, so that is one risk out of the way, and I doubt there is any data as to whether someone with CAIS commits violent crimes towards females in the male pattern or the female pattern.

I would imagine it would be more stressful for them because they might have a feeling that they are being deceptive - it would be interesting to know.

They are not female. We know that because they have CAIS and had testes; women have ovaries instead.

Male aggression is certainly amplified by testosterone; I agree, but the questions I would ask is: would this man be a) more likely to attack me than a woman, b) could I fight them off in the way I would be able to fight off a woman, c) and if I saw them briefly, would my brain recognise them as male- which apparently women can perceive the differences between the sexes at a more successful rate. The last point is important because being in a toilet with a male is incredibly stressful for females to experience.

It's a shame that this person is sitting down because we can't see their height- which, if in the male range, would definitely make women take a second glance.

No ovaries, no functional vagina, no fallopian tubes, no uterus, combined with their XY genetic profile, the above shows they can only be characterised as male and cannot be characterised as female because their dysfunction is in their male body parts, not in any female body parts.

Everything you have listed is cosmetic.

Great.. .but this is a photograph but I am not around them in real life.

It is the combination of never having a female reproductive disorder AND having XY chromosomes and testes that means this person is male. Females who have a dysfunctional reproductive system and XX chromosomes are not characterised as male.

And as this person is male, they cannot participate in anything that has a female category, no matter their external appearance.

There is no such thing as "externally female-bodied. " You either have a female or male body.

It's obvious to you, maybe, but I would have to see these people around women to see if it was obvious to me.