AIBU to think it was never that complicated to define a woman.

[Abisequer]

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has ruled that eligibility for the women’s category of Olympic events will now be limited to biological females, starting from the LA 2028 Games.

AIBU to think the category ‘women’ was never complicated and the obfuscation by certain governing bodies has compromised fairness in sport for women.

Examples of obfuscation include claims that genital checking would be needed or that biological men with lowered testosterone would be on an even playing field with biological women.

AIBU to think it was never complicated to define a woman and a cheek swab is all it takes.

Article

DeepBlueDeer is my regular username and I've been around for a while (including under previous usernames). I have locked myself out of my email account so am temporarily using another, and changed my username to one close to my usual, intending to avoid confusion.

Yes, that is Santhi pictured. Since their diagnosis, they have chosen to present as male.

While an athlete, they look fairly androgynous and, notably, had female-appearing genitalia.

While an athlete, they look fairly androgynous and, notably, had a vagina.

Incorrect. Males can’t have a vagina because it is a female sex organ that connects the vulva to the cervix and uterus. Males with underdeveloped male genitalia can have a blind ending pouch that can be mistaken for a vagina. But it is not a vagina.

Regarding athletes suddenly finding out with no warning that they can't continue in their sport, this is not an unusual occurrence.

Tall basket ball players are tested for the heart problems that can go hand in hand with being tall and have to stop playing at elite level. Premier league footballers are vetted like a horse for sale when they move teams and sometimes fail.

Fabrice Muamba's Premier League playing career ended due to unsuspected heart problems in the middle of a match.

The same must be true of many sports.

I do understand that being told you are not the sex you believe you are adds a level of complexity, but I find it very difficult to believe that these DSD athletes had no idea at all that what happened to their bodies at puberty suggested they were male.

That's pedantry to the nth degree unless you are a medic, I'm afraid.

Until somebody discovers there's no uterus, it's a baby born with a vagina

I think the IOC has that well covered if they are to be believed from the conference.

It’s not though is it? It’s people looking at a baby and seeing a vulva. And then assuming there’s a vagina. But just because they’ve made a logical assumption, doesn’t mean it’s pedantic to point out it’s wrong. Especially when people like Semenya still claims to have a vagina.

They can have a a short or blind-ending vagina, but lack a uterus and ovaries.

This is also true of some females.

It’s not a vagina. Because as an organ, the vagina is defined by its female sexual and reproductive function. It’s like saying men who have a “neovagina” created when they transition have a vagina. They also don’t. In their case the pouch is artificially created instead of being naturally occurring.

The "third world country" argument doesn't stack up for me I'm afraid.

By the time they are competing in national level competition, these athletes are surrounded by agents, physical coaches, psychologocal coaches, nutritionists, physiotherapists, doctors, sponsors.

It's really impossible to believe that none of those people said "doesn't she look a bit masculine? ".

It's really impossible to believe that none of those people said "doesn't she look a bit masculine? ".

The reality is they got to that position exactly because they looked masculine, because they were scouted as being potentially medal winners because everyone knew they were male.

By the time they are competing in national level competition, these athletes are surrounded by agents, physical coaches, psychologocal coaches, nutritionists, physiotherapists, doctors, sponsors.

And yet various studies- focused on improving menstrual healthcare for female athletes, confirm that isn't true. Some have already been posted.

It was meant to be a vagina, it developed by hormones expecting it to be a vagina in exactly the same way as it would in a female. It's only the connection to the uterus you are arguing about.

It does not compare in any way to the inversion of a penis to create a pseudo vagina in trans surgery.

You wouldn't, I hope, say that an XX female who failed to develop a uterus doesn't have a vagina.

Take it up with medical science, its what disagrees with you, not me.

Incorrect. In male athletes, like those with 5 alpha reductase deficiency, it was meant to be the penis and scrotum but didn’t develop that way because of a lack of dihydrotestosterone. It is part of underdeveloped male genitalia. It’s exactly the same as a neovagina. It’s just the surgeons have reversed (literally) the developmental process through surgery.

In females, 46XX, failure to develop a uterus means they still have a vagina, because they are female. They are meant to have a uterus and vagina and it hasn’t fully developed.

Males can’t have a vagina.

I can’t believe I am having to explain this 🙄

That says males don’t have female sex organs?

Happy to. I think medical science will have my back somehow…

I think those studies confirm that nobody involved in supporting these lucrative elite athletes will admit to their suspicions.

Absence of periods is not all that signals male puberty, the whole point is that these people bulk up, get stronger and get skeletal changes and often an Adam's apple and deeper voice in a way that can't solely be attributed to training.

Indeed. So much whataboutery from a new 3 words name poster.

This is also true of some females.

So what?

It doesn't follow that because some females have a particular thing wrong with their physical development, a male with something that looks similar is therefore a female.

Your arguments are on shaky ground, logically, scientifically, morally and from the point of view of common sense.

I can't believe you're being so pedantic.

Your explanation is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, where the point is whether the person who owns it should know it isn't a vagina.

Also, since female is the default development of a foetus in the absence of androgens, I am unconvinced that your argument is medically correct. I am not a medic but my understanding of foetal development is that what was intended to be a clitoris and vagina become instead a penis, not the other way around as you suggest.

So the many many females in studies that are designed to advance female healthcare are lying in order to protect athletes with DSD? Really??

And no, not all males with DSD experience male puberty, or only have partial experience of it, so do not "bulk up" as a male would. Instead, they might (but dont always, in the case of PAIS) develop breasts and/or have their hips widen.

Again, I am not a new poster. Penis beaker, sistine chapel, blah blah blah.

Why don’t you look up 5 alpha reductase deficiency? My description is absolutely medically correct.

It doesn’t matter if the athlete thinks they have a vagina. It isn’t a vagina. And when they acknowledge they are male they know it isn’t a vagina.

No, I meant that the people around them lie about having no suspicion at all.

We've already covered the ones with no male puberty, they are allowed to compete as women. I was talking about the others.

But we're talking about studies - already posted - that has nothing to do with DSDs, and everything to do with the poor state of education, facilities and medical expertise even among elite female athletes and their coaches.

You say that those studies are proof that nobody involved in supporting [DSD] athletes will admit to their suspicions. How so?

It matters very much to the argument about whether these people are knowingly cheating.

If medics want to call a body part by another name when an ordinary person can't tell the difference between that body part and a vagina, that's up to them. It adds nothing to this discussion.

To a layman, it's just like saying that an ear canal is not an ear canal because the rest of the hearing apparatus is missing.