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

development is that what was intended to be a clitoris and vagina become instead a penis, not the other way around as you suggest.

What is intended to be. It isn’t a clitoris and vagina, it’s the precursor. Dihydrotestosterone in foetuses turns that precursor tissue into a penis and scrotum. There is still testosterone and AMH from functioning testes, as a result of the SRY gene, that allows all the other development internally to take place.

And people with CAIS, and some with PAIS, have a short or blind-ending vagina. They function as other vaginas in terms of facilitating intercourse, but the remainder of the reproductive system is not present.

They are not akin to a surgically-created vagina-proxy.

I have taken a brief look at those studies and I can't see anything in them that supports your view that a DSD athlete going through male puberty could have no signs of that at all.

Well it’s not a great analogy because an ear canal is an ear canal and is not dependent on being defined as an ear canal based on the rest of the hearing apparatus or the sex of the person with a hearing canal.

With vaginas, it is. It is a vagina in a female person. It is blind ending pouch in a male person.

And it equally doesn’t matter if the athletes 100% believe it’s a vagina. Believing that and knowingly cheating are not mutually exclusive. You can’t honestly look at that picture of Semenya aged 15 and think he thought of himself as female and didn’t knowingly compete in a category he shouldn’t have?

And in the absence of those androgens the default development of a foetus is female with a vagina.

Your argument is now getting ridiculous.

We were discussing whether female looking people with what they believe to be a vagina are cheating if they compete as a female.

Semenya does got come into this discussion.

Why are you so absolutely hooked up on a medical definition of a vagina that isn't adding a single useful point to this discussion?

Both are pouches in males. There are differences in the tissue composition.

Because Semenya claims he has a vagina and we are meant to believe he didn’t think he was cheating! He absolutely comes into this discussion, that’s the whole point of the discussion.

Nobody on this thread is disagreeing about Semenya!

That's because they aren't studies about DSDs. They're about the persistent lack of proper education and treatment surrounding menstruation among female athletes - 20 years after the IOC's original push for proper monitoring.

Males with CAIS cannot experience male puberty because their bodies cannot absord testosterone, so it converts to estrogen, and they experience (most of) the aspects of female puberty - but not periods.

PAIS means they will absorb some testosterone but how much varies greatly. The less testosterone they absorb, the more estrogen they do, so they could experience puberty in a way that is far more female-typical than male-typical (or vice versa).

So what are you arguing then? It’s perfectly possible that men who think they have a vagina can still be knowingly cheating.

Yes. It is perfectly possible.

It is not a universal rule.

Most on here are apparently adamant that every male athlete to ever have a DSD knew as much, regardless of their life circumstances or access to healthcare.

Presumably, this is also the case for all the many non-athletes who claim to have been shocked to learn they are genetically male despite how their bodies appear. Perhaps they're "cheating society" and it was all a ploy to get sympathy for infertility, or something.

(And feel very free to produce any medical resource that denies that a blind-ending or shallow vagina is not, anatomically, a vagina).

(And feel very free to produce any medical resource that denies that a blind-ending or shallow vagina is not, anatomically, a vagina).

The vagina (pl.: vaginas or vaginae)[1] is the elastic, muscular reproductive organ of the female genital tract through which mammals copulate and give birth.

My bold. By its very definition, it exists only in female mammals. Ergo, male mammals can’t have one. It being blind ended or shallow has nothing to do with it.

HTH.

It’s a deliberate attempt to butcher language. Like saying “people with uteruses” as though men can have them.

No. A vagina is an internal female sex organ

Most on here are apparently adamant that every male athlete to ever have a DSD knew as much, regardless of their life circumstances or access to healthcare.

And you keep repeating the notion that because of where they lived and grew up, that can’t possibly have had any idea and where all in the dark until the testing authorities told them. So patronising.

Is it likely that every single one of the 60 athletes in major athletics finals in the last 25 years was fully in the knowledge of how much they were cheating? Probably not. But it was probably most. And the idea that they were all “shocked” at the news is laughable, naive, patronising and gaslighting.

And bear in mind, the majority of those 60 competed AFTER they were told of their condition.

What medical resource is that?

Want to try again?

Do you think males can have a uterus?

Or that women can have a penis?

Is it likely that every single one of the 60 athletes in major athletics finals in the last 25 years was fully in the knowledge of how much they were cheating? Probably not.
Great, we agree.

the idea that they were all “shocked” at the news is laughable, naive, patronising and gaslighting.
And, to be clear, we still agree. Thank goodness nobody on here has claimed that.

You posted a study of women in educational institutions showing that menstrual difficulties - usually heavy or irregular periods are common.

The solution was better access to medical care.

However, when it was pointed out that at 2006 an athlete competing at Olympic level could have expected investigation into the complete lack of periods by 24 years you stated - without a link - that medical input back then was just fitness screening 🙄.

No one can actually believe that. It’s embarrassing to admit you’ve been duped, but you have.

We are almost 2 years in to The Generation Study where 100,000 babies are having full genetic screening. The cost of FGS is coming down, so in the near future, in the UK at least (and likely other developed countries), all DSDs will be identified at birth. I expect the normalisation of screening will undermine arguments that (i) it’s unethical for the IOC to test (ii) that sex is difficult to determine.

The more road that trans activists run out of in their pursuit to eradicate the female category (as determined by natal sex), hopefully the more energy they will spend on campaigning to ensure people with trans identities aren’t genuinely discriminated against (e.g experiencing detriment in housing, jobs etc.).

In terms of gender ideology, no. I feel like your framing conflates the two issues.

In terms of rare DSDs, yes.

Males with Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome (PMDS) have uteruses and fallopian tubes but cannot carry a child, even via fertility treatment.

Then you have those with Swyer Syndrone who are genetically male (XY) but can, through fertility treatment, carry and birth children. I'm not sure how you would choose to class them, male or female.

Feel free to read up further on the history of medical screening, even in developed countries, and when we moved away from the normalization of irregular or delayed periods.

Also consider that several of the studies discuss the prevalence of the normalization myth, a lack of sexual education and enduring misogynistic social taboos serve as barriers towards proper healthcare to this day, let alone 20 years ago when the IOC first said "hey, maybe this is something sports federations should monitor".

“Fairly androgynous” is doing some heavy lifting here, isn’t it?

The brow ridge and Adam’s apple are entirely masculine, even whilst “presenting as female”.

A masculine appearance and no period ever and yet their medical team thought, “nothing to see, very normal female”. such a shock to find out the chromosomal results.