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

I agree with you. I think those with Swyer Syndrome are generally classed as female despite XY chromosomes. If someone can carry and birth a child (relying on donor eggs) then either they are women or we are saying that some males can have babies.

Women with Swyer Syndrome do tend to be much taller than XX females or males with CAIS, though (so probably have an advantage over both). If the line on the fringes isn't chromosomes, then I'm not sure there's a good reason to exclude CAIS and not Swyer Syndrome, and I'd rather include both than neither.

The Sywer syndrome argument is moot though, as they have steak ovaries and don’t go through puberty.

They’re therefore not in elite sport pathways as girls. Activists like Swyer as a gotcha because with exogenous hormones and assistive reproductive technology they can get pregnant, but they’re not a group that seem to be relevant in elite sport.

As I have said numerous times, there will likely be reviews done on this. Not enough has been modelled and discussed etc as far as I know because the experts are not sure themselves.

Sure, there is no third category for them. If there needs to be, then they need to campaign for it.

If there cannot be, at what point does it become a discussion about whether or not they can be accommodated in sport or not? Not everyone with medical conditions can be accommodated to play. That is an issue that their own support groups need to come up with a solution for.

However, the solution should not be including them in the female category if they, as a group, have advantages not available to female people due to having a body producing testosterone. The female category should not have become an inclusion category for anyone who might find it risky to compete in the male category or who was thought to be female at birth.

And the discussion around arm length or limb length becomes whataboutery when the aim is to include a group with a known physical advantage. A female athlete with long limbs has an allowable physical advantage combination. These are allowed because they are considered to be ‘beatable’ by a female who has some other physical advantage combination. That discussion is a version of the ‘Phelps fallacy’. I am happy to post links to expert opinion on what is allowable advantage within a category vs an advantage combination that puts someone outside the category.

Category boundaries need to exist and be monitored. If a group of athletes have been investigated and found to not fit the category because of advantage, they should not be included in that category because they have no category of their own. That is very unfair to all who need that category boundary to be protected.

This is very clear from Ross Tucker on some of the arguments we have seen from activists in the media.

His video about pushing back on the weak arguments that we have seen for years but which have cycled around so much over the past few days.

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/2038606531386634714?s=46

’The sky is falling as women are harmed - so say various Human Rights groups & people in response to the IOC's Policy to protect women's sport. Their views are misguided, uninformed & false. In this 15 min video, I explain what they get wrong & ignore:’

He said he is doing one on CAIS and I will post it when I see it.

I wouldn’t want to see an adult who had not gone through male puberty in a boxing match or rugby match against an adult male who had, so I think those with complete androgen insensitivity should not be able to compete in the male category.

That should not be your choice or anyone else's to make it should be theirs. It's entirely possible that a natural weight CAIS person will box as well as someone who has had to maintain a lower weight then is natural to them, as happens at the low weights. They can make that choice as an adult. Unlike women who had no choice whether to box males in an attempt to win an Olympic medal.

It wouldn’t be like the mediocre males outperforming elite women.

It would be exactly the same, but to a less obvious degree.

It would be a male person born to have normal genetically male longer arms and legs and male bigger feet and hands taking the place in teams and on medal podiums of a a woman with an unusual ability for a woman.

https://x.com/scienceofsport/status/2038696572381261976?s=46

i think this might be it. I will check though.

”The IOC Policy, like those of other sports, says "No males in women's sport". But they make an exception - a condition called CAIS. This creates potential confusion, and even the possibility of a loophole that sports must be aware of to defend the integrity of women's sport. In this video, Ross explains how the SRY-screen would work, and how the test for advantage has to be held to a very high, rigorous and transparent standard, with a transparent technical document. He implores sports leaders to get this right, for the sake of the overall concept.”

I don't think it would be correct to say that men can have babies. They cannot have babies without medical intervention. We have already had successful births with a donor uterus and there would seem to be no reason why a man shouldn't do the same.

To allow people to compete on the basis they can birth a child would seem to me to carry some parallels with saying athletes should be allowed to increase their performance with drugs.

I don't get why we are falling over backwards to allow people to compete. The majority of people are pretty mediocre at their preferred sport, play as the sex you are and join the rest of relative mediocrity. Or swap to something equestrian and compete on a truly level playing field.

Swyer is irrelevant though, apart from as a gotcha. No puberty means there’ll be no sporting competitiveness.

TRA speak

I think it's relevant solely to the CAIS eligibility discussion, because they don't go through male puberty either. That's all I mean: that no male puberty seems a good and fair line

I’m interested in what you think are the key differences between a female and a person with CAIS? Would you also object to someone with CAIS being in a female prison or hospital ward, and if so, why?

Yet they are over represented, aren’t they? So it’s not fair.

It may be a true advantage or misclassification, but I don’t trust the IOC to provide clarity and until the CAIS vs PAIS loophole is closed.

Im so pleased the IOC have brought in these new rules, but given they also gave us “women with hyperandrogenism” and “passport sex” I’m still wary.

I don't know if we can say. In 1996, a CAIS decision vs PAIS was based on the appearance of the athlete's genitals. They'll be doing molecular testing now, so that should mean fewer CAIS diagnoses.

Ross Tucker says there’s no clarity yet what kind of molecular/genetic testing is used and whether there’s consistency, so I think caution is warranted.

If Yu Ting is claiming CAIS and World Boxing accepts it, it shows that the testing for CAIS is wrong. Yu-Ting looks male, I don’t need to inspect his genitals (honestly, the genital obsession with the TRAs) to notice androgenisation.

I agree caution is warranted, and was pointing out that the old system of inspecting genitals doesn't seem very reliable...

Your original question was why posters on here would exclude CAIS.

For me, that’s why. The boundary lines between CAIS and PAIS are unclear and there’s potential for exploitation. I don’t trust the IOC and other sporting bodies to be transparent and have integrity, given their past record.

I don't think I asked that, but I did agree with the PP (based on the commitees' explanation earlier in the thread). If they are overrepresented that implies an advantage, I just don't know if we can trust the old tests to confirm overrepresentation. You'd certainly hope the new ones will be better since PAIS wasn't excluded then, but will be now, so accuracy will have much higher importance. If they can't reliably tell one from the other, then it seems a strange line to draw.

Well you said this If the line on the fringes isn't chromosomes, then I'm not sure there's a good reason to exclude CAIS and not Swyer Syndrome, and I'd rather include both than neither

My replies were both regarding over representation and category error.

You think it’s a “strange line to draw” and I agree - I’d prohibit CAIS individuals as well (Syeyer is moot, they won’t be Olympians)

ETA : I think your mistake is thinking Swyer is excluded, it wouldn’t be as no male puberty. It’s just not relevant

The second best thing to come from the ruling, after fair play for women, is the potential for speculation based on appearances to end. If testing is accurate and separates those with advantage from those without, hopefully looking like Fatema Whitbread during her sporting prime won’t trigger lots of ugly speculation.

You’re 100% correct. It’s a shame that athletes like Semenya, Khelif etc won’t be able to compete, but the abuse and racism accusations directed at people who pointed out obvious androgenisation has been horrific,

I don’t know why I said it was “a shame” - they’re stinking cheats, both of them. And the people who cheered on men punching women in the face just as bad, as were the people denying obvious masculinisation.

I think you yourself wrote that they are taller than the average woman, which would give them a spring advantage due to their Y gene and not to their progress as a woman.

The prison/hosptal situation is not relevant to a sports.

Sporting, not spring, not progress but it escapes me what word I was trying for! I meant, not because they were a better athlete than other women.

It isn't a fair line if they still have different skeletons on average, with longer arms and legs and bigger feet and hands, which I believe is the case.

It isn't a fair line if that line can be open to medical interpretation. I want to know, for example, on what basis Lin Yu-ting is being allowed to box, because nobody anywhere is stating that they have XX chromosomes, and it seems fair to assume at this stage that they don't.

Ross Tucker says it’s complicated and unclear even among experts where the CAIS/PAIS boundary is. He says someone called David Handelsman is an expert on this and he, Handelsman argues that CAIS is actually incredibly rare and that if you’re seeing skeletal differences you’re seeing an athlete with PAIS.

The more I read about it the more worried I am about the CAIS vs PAIS classification.

I wonder if it's the case that the CAIS individuals that we see in women's sport are like Lin Yu-ting, from gene pools which, after a normal puberty, tend to produce naturally fine boned men with little body and facial hair, so that it's easier to claim that puberty has not happened?