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

A recap of the timeline to get to this point:

Specific dates leading up to the cessation of sex testing were:

1992 - Dr. Arne Ljungqvist becomes a member of the IOC and continue5 to date an educational program to inform the IOC about scientific and ethical issues related to laboratory-based gender verification.

1996 - Most major professional medical societies have passed resolutions against chromosome-based gender screening in sports.

1996-1997 - IOC World Congress on Woman and Sport passes a resolution to abandon gender verification at the Olympics. Women's Sports Foundation
publishes a policy statement against blanket chromosome screening in support of IAAF model. The Norwegian parliament outlaws gender verification in sport. The IOC Medical Commission is unconvinced and the Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games is contractually committed to on-site, laboratory-based, gender veritication of all female althletes competing in women's events.

1997-1998 - Arguments for and against change are presented to the IOC Athlete5 Commission by Professor A. Liungqvist and Dr. B. Dingeon, respectively. Prince de Merode and Dr. Hay argue for their original policy of blanket gender verification at IOC-sponsored sporting events. Athletes
Commission nonetheless calls for the discontinuation of the present system and rccommenda replacing it with a "reserve clause" system based on IOC Medical Commission intervention on an individualized basis, following scientific and ethical guidelines.

1999 - IOC Executive Board accepts unanimous recommendations of its Athletes Commission. Blanket gender verification screening of all female
athletes will not be conducted at the 2000 Millennia1 Games in Sydney, on a conditional basis for later review.

Importantly, for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics they surveyed the female athletes and found:

"At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not
they were made anxious by the testing procedure. Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events.
No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed."

"Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued"

They didn't listen to female athletes it seems.

And then this is my own summary of the next 15 year's decisions ...

1999 - From what I gather, from the Nature article is that a campaign group successfully convinced the IOC in the late 90s to prioritise inclusion. Because of what they position was the human rights violation of these male athletes with DSDs suffering indignities during testing and the outcomes of that testing.
So in the 1999 the OIC removed testing. 82% of female athletes wanted testing to remain.

Ie. My understanding is that the group campaigned that any male with a Difference of Sex Development that had been incorrectly registered as 'female' on their passport was to never be sex tested by the IOC again and allowed to compete as if they were female, regardless of whether they had gone through male puberty.

www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11

2004 - Then in 2004 they allowed male people who surgically removed their testes to compete in female competition. Because once you allow one group of male people in, you must equally allow the other in or you are discriminating against transgender people.

https://olympics.com/ioc/news/ioc-approves-consensus-with-regard-to-athletes-who-have-changed-sex-1

2015 -Then in 2015, a campaign group including Harper, using Harper’s flawed study (see nequals8.com web site) convinces the IOC that it is unfair discrimination to exclude any male with a transgender identity describing themselves as a woman. The IOC changes the policy to allow them.

https://nequals8.com
^https://cgscholar.com/bookstore/works/race-times-for-transgender-athletes^
https://stillmed.olympic.org/Documents/Commissions_PDFfiles/Medical_commission/2015-11_ioc_consensus_meeting_on_sex_reassignment_and_hyperandrogenism-en.pdf

2016 -Then came the Rio trio in the female 800m and we start to see the testosterone suppression of the male people with DSDs come in. Semenya takes this to court in 2019. Appealed 2020. The evidence presented confirmed 5ARD and testosterone of 21 nmol/L.

2021 - 2020 Tokyo games held in 2021 was the testosterone suppressed games. Hubbard, a late 40 something male in female event where next youngest was probably a decade and a half younger, shines light on the issue.
The IOC reacts by announcing a review.

The new guidelines released Nov 2021 devolve responsibility for policy to each discipline’s international federation. ie. They force the sporting federations to make the hard decisions that the IOC refuse to make.

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/Beyond-the-Games/Human-Rights/IOC-Framework-Fairness-Inclusion-Non-discrimination-2021.pdf#_ga=2.219716894.621299853.1686571450-594927581.1678187184

They also reaffirm that 'inclusivity' is their over all priority. They say that safety is as well, but this is clearly contradictory when you consider boxing as an example.

The IOC is clear that they RECOGNISE that the inclusion of male athletes will be UNFAIR but their priority is inclusion. Richard Budgett said this.

The federations then develop their own policies. that have done this are : FINA, WA, UCI, IBA and WR. FIFA for instance announced a review years ago and done nothing. IBA announced their new policy in 22/23.

The WA have even stated that their new guidelines for the Olympics immediately excluded 13 males with DSDs with testosterone advantage from the competitions until those 13 male athletes chose to reduce their testosterone to 2.5 nmol/L for 2 years. 13 just in athletics competitions alone! (By the way, this reduction has already been shown to not eliminate unfair male advantage, but this is where we are at the moment.)

The IOC and other organisations still claimed that Semenya is a 'female with naturally high testosterone' to this day. Despite the world being easily able to find the evidence presented to the CAS that Semenya is MALE with 5-ARD and had tested with a testosterone level of 21nmol/L. NO female has that level and is healthy. They are likely to be gravely ill.

That is where we are now.

here is the 2026 policy

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf

Here is the statement:

https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/international-olympic-committee-announces-new-policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-women-s-category-in-olympic-sport

here is the policy

https://stillmed.olympics.com/media/Documents/International-Olympic-Committee/EB/policy/policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-category-english.pdf

THE POLICY

For the purpose of this Policy, the IOC has adopted the consensus definitions of the Working Group, which are set out in Schedule 1.
For all disciplines on the Sports Programme of an IOC Event, including individual and team sports, eligibility for any Female Category is limited to Biological Females.

Eligibility for the Female Category is to be determined in the first instance by SRY Gene screening to detect the absence or presence of the SRY Gene. On the basis of the scientific evidence, the IOC considers that the SRY Gene is fixed throughout life and represents highly accurate evidence that an athlete has experienced or will experience Male sex development. Furthermore, the IOC considers that SRY Gene screening via saliva, cheek swab or blood sample is unintrusive compared to other possible methods.
Athletes who screen negative for the SRY gene permanently satisfy this Policy’s eligibility criteria for competition in the Female Category. Unless there is reason to believe a negative reading is in error, this will be a once-in-a-lifetime test.

With the exception of athletes with a diagnosis of CAIS or other rare DSDs that do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone, no athlete with an SRY-positive screen is eligible for competition in the Female Category.

Athletes with an SRY-positive screen, including XY transgender and androgen-sensitive XY-DSD athletes, continue to be included in all other classifications for which they qualify, for example, they are eligible for (i) any Male Category, including in a designated Male slot within any mixed category, and (ii) any open category or in sports and events that do not classify athletes by Sex.

The IOC recognises that XY athletes who identify as women and who want the opportunity to compete at IOC Events according to their legal sex or gender identity may disagree with this Policy. However, after a thorough scientific review and consultations with constituents of the Olympic Movement, the IOC determined that a Sex-based eligibility rule is necessary and adequate to the attainment of the IOC’s goals for competition at IOC Events.

This is under the definitions section:

Sex: Either of the two categories, Male or Female, into which humans are divided according to their reproductive biology.

Biological Female (Female): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced female sex development usually based on their XX-chromosomes, ovaries, and estrogenic hormones.

Biological Male (Male): An individual who, regardless of their legal sex or gender identity, experienced male sex development usually based on their XY-chromosomes, testes/testicles and androgenic hormones.

Everyone knows who the women are and one way or another, they always demonstrate it. Frequently by holding a man who says he's a woman higher than a woman who says he's not.

I’m banned from the olympics too because I’m too slow. Bahbahha

I don’t care I’m too slow, I want to go!

This part is also interesting as a summary:

Performance Advantage:

o Consistent with the functional effects of higher circulating testosterone levels, Males have larger and stronger skeletal muscle and bone, larger and stronger hearts, larger lung size, more red blood cells, and lower body fat than Females trained to the equivalent level.
Together these attributes afford Males individual sex-based performance advantages in sports and events that rely on strength, power and/or endurance.

o Female athletes experience performance disadvantages relative to Males, associated with Female anatomy and physiology, that contribute to overall Male performance advantage in sports and events that rely on strength, power and/or endurance. These disadvantages may include, for example, the menstrual cycle, gestation and anatomical differences such as periodic ligament laxity (looseness), wider hips and more breast tissue.

o XY Transgender athletes and athletes with certain XY differences/disorders in sex development (DSD) (as defined in Schedule 1) have anatomical and physiological advantages in line with being Male even as their legal sex, the manner in which they were raised, and/or their gender identity may vary. XY transgender athletes and athletes with XY-DSD typically have testes/testicles and testosterone levels in the Male range. The clear majority are androgen-sensitive, meaning that their bodies are receptive to and make use of that testosterone during growth and development and throughout their athletic career.

o Androgen-sensitive XY-DSD and XY Transgender athletes retain Male performance advantage due in part to training effects and fixed traits. There is no current evidence that testosterone suppression or gender-affirming hormone treatment eliminates this advantage.

o XY-DSD athletes with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) (defined in Schedule 1) and other rare XY DSDs that do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone should, on that basis, be included in the Female Category.

• Magnitude of Advantage: At the elite level, the magnitude of the Male performance advantage is different depending on the sport or event:

o There is a 10-12 per cent Male performance advantage in most running and swimming events.
o There is a 20+ per cent Male performance advantage in most throwing and jumping events.
o The Male performance advantage can be greater than 100 per cent in events that involve explosive power, e.g. in collision, lifting and punching sports.

• Variation in Advantage: The extent of the performance advantage (and its implications) varies across sports and events and from occasion to occasion, depending on the athletes involved.

• Safety risks: In contact sports (e.g., individual and team combat, collision, projectile sports), the strength and power differential between Males and Females increases safety risks to Female athletes.

''Feast of self congratulation'' ??

🙄
What a bitter and unpleasant response to a step towards a world where a man pretending to be a woman can't step into a boxing ring and beat the shit out of an actual woman.

Not at all. It was much less physically intrusive that drug testing, for starters.

wow @Helleofabore

That is such an interesting timeline

It is. It is very much activist led with the same names appearing in those early changes Particularly Dr. Arne Ljungqvist.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cdj7dgvlj0no

In a reflection of just how sensitive an area of policy this has become, the IOC has traditionally left it to international sports to decide on eligibility criteria for female competition. But in a major shift in policy, all federations will now be expected to follow suit

Oh happy days

It was never difficult to know who was male / female. It was always "Emperor's new clothes"

And I feel people becoming more confident to speak out against Stonewall trans policies, now debunked

I identify as faster than Usain Bolt. It doesn't matter that every measure shows I'm not, you can't erase me like that. Slow shitty runners are Olympic sprinters, slow shitty runners are Olympic sprinters. You can't narrow down the definition of Olympic sprinters, you need to be kind and inclusive. Olympic sprinter means slow shitty runner. Now give me my gold medal. Don't go giving me a bronze medal and telling me bronze medals are gold medals...

"So it is absolutely clear that it would not be fair for biological males to compete in the female category. In addition, in some sports it would simply not be safe.”

Even if it wasn’t glaringly obvious that we have sex categories for a reason why did they allow biological males to compete BEFORE they did a review.

GIve those medals back to all the women.

I have a pet cheetah, but he’s been captive for a while and likes to identify as a human.

Can he run in the mens race please?

No, it’s not complicated at all. Biological females have a vagina. Biological males have a penis.

No need for any more thought than that.

Why do we need to talk about external organs when a cheek swap can be done quicker.

It was never complicated

Just some, and these were be far mostly male, wanted to dictate to females and set the rules to suit themselves

Something we woman, females, are used to as it happens in so many areas of our lives starting from when we are children

Well that adorable dog did have a go in the winter olympics!

Of course it's never been complicated as everyone knows that men have considerable physical advantages over women and that the men who compete in women's sports are cheats.

All my sympathies lie with the women like Lynsey Sharp, cheated out of medals and places in Olympic history by men like Semenya.

Nobody is ‘banned’ and the media doing the usual ‘what about the poor men’ can just fuck right off.

https://x.com/WomenReadWomen/status/1995529404282220682?s=20

I will always remember Semenya saying that Lynsey just didn't work hard enough.

That is really one fucked up position from a person who has known for years that they were male and had masculinised.

Has anyone checked in on Pink News?

Its a difficult one, this is the correct answer & it should never have been in dispute

but surely there is an argument for trans categories.

I think stonewall have a lot of power & thats why its all debated and trying to put acceptance as standard

There isn't, really, since all trans people are male or female and can compete with others of their own sex. It's not difficult at all, as you know very well.

Still, if trans people want to create and set up their own category that's fine. (Records are meaningless if not recorded accurately by sex, though.) Nobody is stopping them. That option was always roundly rejected though, and you can see not one of the sobbing, raging TRAs right now is suggesting it. It's got to be women's categories and spaces, and you know that too.

Sad times.