Women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome

[Tandora]

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/symptoms/#:~:text=Girls%20with%20CAIS%20do%20not,make%20some%20sexual%20acts%20difficult.
Inspired by the dumpster fire of a certain thread that filled up just now -
AIBU to share some information about girls and women with CAIS. Many of these women and girls won’t learn about their variation in sex characteristics until adulthood. Some might never know and not without the assistance of modern technologies (that can test , eg, karyotype). For cases of CAIS identified at birth, most individuals are assigned/ registered/ raised female. (Yes sex can be assigned).

Anyone who could know a girl/ woman with CAIS in the real world, and tell her she is , in fact , unambiguously a boy/ man, because gametes, - well you would deserve worse than to be called a sexual fascist.

The NHS recognises the existence of girls and women with CAIS , and provides medical interventions accordingly.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/androgen-insensitivity-syndrome/symptoms/#:~:text=Girls%20with%20CAIS%20do%20not,make%20some%20sexual%20acts%20difficult.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1429/

Yes these conditions are rare, but the more we learn about the biology of sex development , the more complex the picture becomes, as with most areas of science/ biology/ medicine .

@Tandora of course it's possible. DSDs where the person has experienced male puberty and responds to testosterone means the person cannot compete in the female category.

I've explained it to you twice now. Go back and read the thread, I'm not wasting any more of my time by explaining it to you a third and then no doubt a fourth time.

It’s like a bingo card.

She should have trained harder.
She should be used to being hit
Noone knows what sex anyone else is
Stop being genital nazis
Why do you care about other people’s genitals
Don't be so mean.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom you have been incredibly patient.

Ridiculous

No you haven’t. You have explained how there are tests for karyotype, ways to look at internal organs, ways to test hormone levels. Of course there are, no one is disputing this. I have repeatedly explained to you that all those tests can do is tell you exactly those things- a persons karyotype, their hormones, the structure of their internal organs. in cases where there is a mismatch the results of those tests cannot tell you - give you a definitive answer - as to whether that person with those mismatched characteristics is properly described as male or female. There is no test that can do that.

That's being charitable.

Can I just check, do you subscribe to the concept of "hormonal sex" and consider someone born male, who has passed through male puberty, but has altered their hormonal levels by supressing their testosterone (through orchiectomy or chemical means), and taking oestrogen, to be a type of female?

Is this part of the "it's really complicated" thing that might involve such a person legitimately, in your opinion, competing in the female category?

Now it’s “male puberty”? Normally it is karyotype, or gametes on these threads. What is the medical test that proves whether someone has “experienced male puberty”?

😂😂. And that’s my queue to stop ignoring my husband and baby . Take care all x

@Tandora it's been explained to you on this thread. If the person has a DSD then it is known which DSDs mean the person has been through male puberty and responds to testosterone.

The same does not go for sex.

@@ditalini at 20:31 gave a reasonable set of criteria.

I have already acknowledged there are people who have a Y chromosome and yet have some significant disadvantage due to some kind of chromosomal abnormality. Except in the case to absolute total insensitivity to testosterone, the appropriate category would be in the paralympics with a set of scaled points to quantify their disadvantage, as with all the other situations where a disadvantage can have many different levels of effect.

The women's category is for women, it's not a category for "people who wouldn't stand a chance in the men's category because due to one of a myriad of potential diversities they are not a peak physical specimen among the males of the species" in a context where the whole point of the activity is to find the peak specimens - male and female who are strongest/fastest/most skilled at each sport.

There are billions of people on this planet who don't stand a chance of getting an olympic medal due to some accident of birth. Everyone else just accepts that and participates in the sports they enjoy at the level they are able to access.

I am quite happy to call them (or other DSD people in similar situations) women in this case...It is hugely complex and they initially thought they were fully female/have female passports. This does not mean they should be ever allowed to compete in women's sports. It must be sad for them. But their disappointment cannot override safety and fairness.

I hope they were aware tbh, because having internal testes or streak gonads isn't a benign thing for the person with the dsd. They're at increased risk of cancer and either need their gonadal tissue removed or regularly monitored, just like any man with undescended testes.

Women are perfectly capable of hating other women.

How often is there a mismatch?

Absolutely.

We shouldn't need category of women's sports in the first place. Women just need to train harder, get with the times and believe better in their equality. And don't get me started about the exclusionary Paralympics!

But as you've created a thread about a thread, we can't know which claims you believe to be troubling? Why couldn't you respond to posters on that thread?

You then say you don't know if the athletes from the other thread have CAIS , so why is your thread about CAIS?

This is all quite vague. What's your agenda?

She's still ignoring her husband and baby on a different thread about this.

So...... are you still going to be posting the same 'scientific evidence' when a woman is permanently disabled or worse by your policy of inclusion for all?

About a previous incident.

The Olympics website noted that Khelif had been disqualified hours before a gold medal bout against China's Yang Liu in New Delhi after her elevated levels of testosterone failed to meet the eligibility criteria.

The Algerian Olympic Committee (COA) hit back by claiming the disqualification was part of a 'conspiracy' to stop them from winning a gold medal and said 'medical reasons' were behind high testosterone levels.

If they were a female they would have received a ban for doping. How is this fair?

We keep talking about how it's not fair to exclude. But it's certainly not fair to include either.

The IOC are screaming about prejudice. This is boxing. It should be about safety and fairness first, not identity politics.

I find this rather ridiculous bc all kinds of physical advantages exist for athletes that allow them to excel in the first place. The examples are too numerous to exist, however posters like yourselves aren't policing those. Swimmers are taller, so are able to essentially have a shorter distance to cover with every length of the pool, as well as having longer reach. Someone could be just as fast as someone taller but bc they're a foot shorter they won't get to the finish as quickly. Many other advantages exist for power, speed, lung and heart capacity, etc.

Except a woman with elevated levels of a known performance enhancing drug called testosterone would be banned from the same event for doping... The same levels these males are presenting with. But they are given a pass for it, because 'medical reasons'. And without regard for the safety related implications of this to female athletes.

So I think it does actually matter. And isn't really fair. Or safe.

Keep in mind that bigger women would be in a different weight class in boxing. Again for safety reasons.

So many of those physical differences you mention are actually taken into consideration in this particular sport. For safety.

Did I say safety reasons enough in this post. Nope.

There is consideration given to the safety of all competitors when boxing, to ensure the risk of serious harm is reduced as much as possible.

As soon as this disadvantages males versus females we get butterflies and poof this concept disappears.