Francine Niyonsaba has qualified for Tokyo Olympics

[andyoldlabour]

Francine Niyonsaba has qualified for Tokyo Olympics, in the women's 5000m and 10000m. Francine has the same 46 XY DSD as Caster Semenya and due to the very strange IOC/WA rules is only barred from events between 400m and 1 mile.
At Francine's very first attempt at 10000m they beat the Burundi national record by 20s. Francine has run just 2 5000m races, but beat the Burundi national record twice.

runningmagazine.ca/sections/runs-races/francine-niyonsaba-runs-10000m-olympic-standard-at-ethiopian-trials/

If they are female then there testosterone would never be too high

Yes it would - because if an unnaturally high level is not down to a DSD or a tumour, then it would be down to doping (testosterone, being an anabolic steroid, is a banned substance).

But I suppose "males disqualified from female competition" doesn't garner the same degree of sympathy or outrage.

At least one of the DSD conditions that come under the regulations means that the athlete may be a phenotypical female though, and would usually be picked up through investigation of primary amenorrhea.

@Ekofisk are you saying that they could be female with female DSDs?

I know there are lots of different DSDs and I don't know the ins and outs of all of them but my understanding is that each one is a DSD which can only be found in either male or female people.

I thought the organisations had so far only excluded male people with DSDs from female competitions*

*that is when they DO exclude, from what I've seen so far, they are often allowed to compete

Ekofisk---No, the limit remains 10 nanomoles per liter, despite the 2018 ruling www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1091417/ioc-guidelines-transgender-tokyo-2020

@FlyPassed

No, I’m saying that they present as women but have 46XY karyotype.

@PrincessNutella

The IOC ruling for transgender women is 10 nmol/l but some individual sporting bodies have set lower limits, eg World Athletics set it at 5 nmol/l.

You have to comply with the World Athletics rules in order to compete internationally and qualify for the Olympics, so it doesn’t matter that the IOC limit is higher.

Thanks for clarifying

That bbc article is so ridiculous. The athletes in question will have never had a period. There is no way they didn’t know that there was a physical difference (presumably internal testes) between them and the women they compete against

@Ekofisk

But I suppose "males disqualified from female competition" doesn't garner the same degree of sympathy or outrage.

At least one of the DSD conditions that come under the regulations means that the athlete may be a phenotypical female though, and would usually be picked up through investigation of primary amenorrhea.

Genuine question here born out of not understanding. When you say phenotypically female here, do you mean phenotypical as being observably/recognisably female? Or phenotypically female because typical male features not observed?

Phenotypically female as in external genitalia that would be generally be observed as female.

Sticking with their story and looking to scope creep into the I.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1413173016117272580?s=21

EkofiskIs this true for every sport? I have seen some athletes have been disqualified for 5 nanomoles, but I have not seen any that say that Laurel Hubbard had to meet a 5 nanomole standard. I would be interested to see if there is evidence of that specificallyeverything I have seen seems to say 10 nanomoles. Certainly, Hubbard will be able to have 10 nanomoles during the competition, which matters because it is five to ten times more testosterone than actual females can have in their systems when they compete.

World Athletics governs track and field events, so it's competitors in those sports that have to meet their 5 nmol/l limit.

Most other Olympic sports are following the IOC's older 10 nmol/l limit, including weightlifting. So that's what Hubbard has to meet.

Phenotypically female as in external genitalia that would be generally be observed as female.

You mean ambiguous external genitalia, no vagina, no female reproductive system, internal testes, and male puberty.

IOW you’re saying a man without a penis is “phenotypically female.”

You can't look at Caster Semenya and really be that confused about this person's phenotype.

@allmywhat

You mean ambiguous external genitalia, no vagina, no female reproductive system, internal testes, and male puberty.

No, not necessarily ambiguous external genitalia - there is a vagina and there may or may not be a uterus for instance. It depends on which of the listed DSDs is involved. Testosterone can be produced by the adrenal gland as well as by testes. That’s why cases can slip through and not be picked up until puberty or until there are fertility issues.

Which is why “phenotypically female” is the applicable term for some of these cases.

[quote OhHolyJesus]Sticking with their story and looking to scope creep into the I.

twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1413173016117272580?s=21[/quote]
Christ alive. The dishonesty.

My understanding is there’s no vagina; there’s sometimes a pouch.

I’m not at all surprised at you failing to make that distinction. However I’m surprised at what you say re a uterus. Could you clarify which of the XY DSDs on the list that applies to?

That article linked in the stonewall tweet made me feel sick. It is dizzying in its dishonesty.

And it is dishonesty, isn't it? You can't write something that intricate without knowing the truth. You have to know it to dance around it so elegantly.

Yup. They are either doing it cynically or there's some very deep doublethink because it is based on a strong belief (that on some level they know isn't true). Either way it is deeply dishonest. The whole bit about how the poor female athlete with her naturally high testosterone is being forced to have a gonadectomy... Fuck. Off. Look at what you just wrote FFS!

I kind of think of it like getting 0 points on a multiple choice test. In a difficult subject, I'd accept that as a pass - you clearly know the correct answers.

Ha! Yes.

@allmywhat

My understanding is there’s no vagina; there’s sometimes a pouch.

I’m not at all surprised at you failing to make that distinction. However I’m surprised at what you say re a uterus. Could you clarify which of the XY DSDs on the list that applies to?

@allmywhat

You don’t need to be snarky. I’m not denying that these athletes have an unfair advantage. All I’m trying to point out is that some DSD conditions are missed or possibly hidden at birth and are picked up later.

From the list on the IAAF 46,XY DSD regulations:

Literature on a patient with 17β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 3 includes an 18 year old phenotypically female with a neovagina.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23435447/

Females with the 3β‐hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase condition may have slight genital abnormalities at birth but develop irregular menstruation, hirsutism and infertility as they get older.

medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/3-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-deficiency/

I have been following a tweet thread over the past day between a male who identifies as a woman and Dr Emma Hilton. They have been trying to argue against her work and it has turned to the Namibian athletes.

twitter.com/msmylesmua/status/1411152484245008386?s=21

One of the tweets link to a different thread same discussion..

‘The rules cited for exclusion are the WA DSD regulations.

If these athletes are XX, no sanctions are applied.

If these athletes are high T in the absence of further tests like karyotype, I wouldn’t expect that statement to cite DSD rules.’

twitter.com/fondofbeetles/status/1411713446010314753?s=21