Observer article about testosterone

[SuperSleepyBaby]

Just posting this article from the Observer yesterday about testosterone in case anyone is interested

www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/07/katrina-karkazis-cannot-use-testosterone-divide-people-male-female-gender-aggression-sexual-function

“Katrina Karkazis: ‘You can’t use testosterone levels to divide people into male or female: The cultural anthropologist on why our view of testosterone as the male sex hormone skews both science and society”

www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/07/katrina-karkazis-cannot-use-testosterone-divide-people-male-female-gender-aggression-sexual-function

Is this the start of a reverse ferret?

You write: “The science is clear, there is no single, physiological or biological marker that allows for the simple categorisation of people as male or female.” Would you say, then, that male and female are false categories?
No, they’re very real categories. What that statement means is that you can’t use chromosomes alone, you can’t use genitalia, you can’t use testosterone levels to divide people into male or female.''

''Science isn’t the only way to understand how to think about who’s a man and who’s a woman. Some people argue that identity should be the determinant, irrespective of physiology. But it doesn’t mean that we can’t have the categories just because sex is complex. It means that the categories can be made to accommodate that complexity.''

You can't determine 'pregnant' by one marker only. So by that reckoning, does pregnancy exist? Can anyone now identify as pregnant?
We should expand the definition of pregnant to include 'people who identify as pregnant', because they say so.

The article doesn't really seem to say very much, I don't really get what their point is other than "it's complicated".

In his book Behave, Dr Robert Sapolsky, who's a neuroendocrinologist and professor of biology at Stanford suggests that testosterone is linked with status, so in some societies/cultures that may be linked with aggression and in others putting on a smart suit and being CEO depending on what gives blokes status amongst their peers.

The whole thing seemed to be - the link is weak, we don't have the data to prove it; without considering that you don't have the data because nobody bothers their arse to research the blindingly obvious.

First sentence of the article: "Katrina Karkazis, a senior research fellow at Yale University, is a cultural anthropologist working at the intersection of science, technology, gender studies and bioethics." I kind knew what to expect from that point on.

Definitely NOT a reverse ferret, just a same old same old from the Graun.

‘Cultural anthropologist’ aka someone with about the same knowledge of human biology as the person on the street but who went to a few interdisciplinary conferences at Yale and picked up a few buzzwords along the way.

I’ll get my information on human biology from practicing physicians, thanks. (The good doctor AH excepted of course)

'My work on testosterone stems from my earlier research, including my research on “sex testing” and sport regulations that ban women [sic] athletes with naturally high testosterone. This research has appeared in Science, The American Journal of Bioethics, BMJ, and Feminist Formations. I contributed to Dutee Chand’s successful appeal of the IAAF’s testosterone regulation at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and served as an expert witness in the hearing. I also consulted with Caster Semenya’s team prior to her CAS hearing.'

www.katrinakarkazis.com

(The good doctor AH excepted of course) You need to pin Dr CJ and Dr SW to that particular board of shame.

“The science is clear, there is no single, physiological or biological marker that allows for the simple categorisation of people as male or female.” That just means that you cannot work backwards and list a particular set of foolproof attributes that will prove someone is one particular sex. Not that the two different sexes do not exist.

It is the old 'it is raining so the pavement is wet' does not mean 'the pavement is wet so it has been raining' thing.

Her undergraduate degree was in public policy and her Masters was in Public Health and her PhD was in cultural anthropology - so, again, she doesn’t have any in-depth knowledge of human endocrinology, just the regulation and management of it from a public health point of view. I’m sure she had gained some knowledge of it due to the interdisciplinary nature of her research but she’s not a clinician. Bioethics is the study of the ethics around medicine, not the practice of medicine itself.

Her argument basically amounts to ‘it’s complicated’ rather than any revelations about what effects testosterone has . Well of course it’s complicated, human biology is complicated. There is never one single factor that plays into any biological phenomenon, whether you’re talking about cancer or diabetes or the human capacity for sight. Just because human sight varies and is a complex biological phenomenon, it doesn’t mean there is no point in recognizing the difference between people with sight and people who are visually impaired. In fact, ignoring the existence of impairment will only harm people who are visually impaired.

From KarKazis intro page:

"My work on testosterone stems from my earlier research, including my research on “sex testing” and sport regulations that ban women athletes with naturally high testosterone.
I contributed to Dutee Chand’s successful appeal of the IAAF’s testosterone regulation at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), and served as an expert witness in the hearing. I also consulted with Caster Semenya’s team prior to her CAS hearing."

Dutee Chand, Caster Semenya, Margaret Wambui, Francine Niyonsaba all have one thing in common, thay were all suspended by the IAAF for incredibly high testosterone levels. In Chand's case it is because she has Hyperandrogenism, in the other three cases, it is because they have a "Y" chromosome and have gone through a male puberty.
Some so called aexperts argue that high testosterone in a woman does not equal increased athletic performance, if that is true then why were the East German athletes doped with testosterone and why is it a WADA proscribed substance.
Methinks Karkazis is being a tad disingenuous.
You don't even need A level biology to know this stuff.

She is an anthropologist. Just jumping on the bandwagon here.