Female Namibian runners change events due to too high testosterone

[KevinBaconsJeans]

Just spotted this on my newsfeed and very confused. I've seen on another post that there is no maximum limit for women's natural testosterone. So does that mean that this BBC article is lying by omission about the sex of the runners to create a story that isn't true?

It talks about two Namibian runners who have had to switch to different events because they have high T...

www.bbc.com/sport/africa/58029941

Extract:
Her initial excitement at an Olympic qualification however was crushed when she was informed by World Athletics that she would not be able to compete in the 400m event at the Games due to high levels of testosterone.

"In the beginning I was very down, you can't come and tell me now I am not a woman. That is really frustrating and gets me on my nerves but there's nothing we can do about it at the moment," she told BBC Sport Africa...

"It is really unfair because you cannot expect everyone to be the same, everyone to have the same abilities, we are born with different abilities, we can't be the same it doesn't make sense."

Masilingi was only informed in July by World Athletics that her testosterone levels were beyond the allowed limit for female athletes wanting to run in distances from 400m to one mile, unless they medically lower their testosterone for a period of at least six months

I haven't rtft because I am so hacked off. Someone else has probably said this but sport has always been corrupt and there have been moves to clean things up. However, they are now just targeting women's athletics. Sports women cannot speak up and cannot take direct action. Along with a corrupt BBC and other media organisations (lying by omission), it has now reached boiling point for me. I feel powerless and I do not feel kind.

@Femwitch

Agree with *@TheSkatesOfCoachBombay* - I've often thought a paralympics classification would be the fairest outcome, surely. I don't think I've ever seen it discussed publicly as an option though - has anyone else?

The problem with this option is that it is not what the athletes & their sporting bodies want. They want medals and will exploit any loophole to get them. This is the Caster Semenya legacy. It is up to the IOC to sort the rules out to prevent this happening & so far they are just fudging it. What has happened in the women’s 200m, if it’s allowed to carry on, will open the floodgates.

I see - I naively hadn't thought about medal winning being such a driving motivator for the countries as well as the athletes. Although perhaps if it becomes more prevalent then some other major medal winning countries (I mean that are currently strong across many sports eg GB, USA, Australia) that take fairness pretty seriously might start pushing back? Or is that really naive too?

@Femwitch
It is naive I’m afraid. As someone said up thread, they are now targeting women’s athletics

Trending on Twitter now - "Tokyo 2020: Why are intersex athletes being banned?" Sorry, I don't have the IT skills to share. Having had a cursory look and it would be great if someone with more knowledge than me could have a read and critique because it looked as though some of what is being claimed may be open to debate.

@gailforce1

Trending on Twitter now - "Tokyo 2020: Why are intersex athletes being banned?" Sorry, I don't have the IT skills to share. Having had a cursory look and it would be great if someone with more knowledge than me could have a read and critique because it looked as though some of what is being claimed may be open to debate.

Not sure if this link will work..

twitter.com/i/events/1422537456390397958?s=21

[quote AntsInPenzance]@CuriousaboutSamphire. It is my understanding that women with Swyer's syndrome have a vulva, vagina and uterus, and with the help of artificial insemination, can get pregnant and give birth. As far as I am concerned, a person born with a vagina and who can become pregnant and give birth is clearly a woman regardless of chromosomes.

medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/swyer-syndrome/

If that is not true, then I will happily read any link you can provide and will reflect on any further information.[/quote]
They are still genetically male. They don't produce eggs because they don't have any ovaries.

They can carry a foetus because they have a uterus but they need ivf using donor eggs.

I've seen worse. At least they mention testes a few times.

But they use "female" a lot, and there's no way these athletes can be realistically described as female.

But some athletes including Olympian Caster Semenya have been banned from competing in certain races because they are intersex or have high levels of testosterone.

The "or" is false. That is "and". One of those alone would not be sufficient.

This is often known as hyperandrogenism.

False. Hyperandrogenism is excess testosterone, eg PCOS in females. They have normal testosterone for their male bodies. Hyperandrogenism is not a reason for exclusion.

Is anyone else getting the rage for the amount of misinformation and downright lying that continues to go on about this?

The facts are there in the IOC ruling that these restrictions only apply to virilised XY athletes with dsd. Why do the BBC and all other media organisations refuse to call it out explicitly as it is? I genuinely cannot comprehend whats in it for them...

That Twitter thread looked not very balanced to me.

Any thread seeking to inform should front and centre quote the IAAF regulations.

Athletes with this particular DSD are only legally female because in their case ‘assigned female at birth’ is correct (ie it was assigned rather than correctly observed). Or possibly ‘wrongly observed to be female at birth’ would be better.

Obviously that accounts for a vanishingly small number of people, and occurs more often where healthcare is not as good, which accounts (partly) for legally female athletes with this DSD being overly represented by people of colour.

Given people with this DSD will not menstruate, all of these athletes will presumably have known their condition for a while.

Obviously on an individual level what they go through must be difficult. But in a population level if we want women’s sports then these regulations are necessary, and probably do not go far enough.

These 2 tweets.

I haven't read this whole thread so apologies if this has been covered, but Michael Johnson took a moment to explain this a bit further on the BBC, when gabby logan would havevskipped over it. He explained why they are allowed in 200m but not 400m, giving the same explanation as the twitter thread by scienceofsport linked above. He said that these athletes have differences of sexual development (he wasn't explicit about exactly what that means in this case though), and the reason they can compete in some distances but not others was because at the court of arbitration for sport they could only prove an advantage in middle distances, not short or long.

He obviously does understand the situation (as he should) and thought it worth explaining on the beeb, which I thought was interesting.

I know how you can prove advantage over 200m: look at the race times for boys vs women.

boysvswomen.com/#/

The medalists in today's race wouldn't even qualify if they were racing against teenage boys in the US.

Someone should send Johnson and Logan the link

I know how you can prove advantage over 200m: look at the race times for boys vs women.

Yes, Johnson wasn't saying that he didn't think it could be proven, but that the reason the rules are what they are is because the court found the advantage was proven, but only for middle distances.
As Ross tucker said (I think) there was only evidence because the dsd athletes had competed at middle distances. Now the evidence will be gathered at 200m too.

I think Johnson is mightily pissed off about the situation and is trying to bring the light. During the heats he repeatedly noted that the two Namibian DSD athletes weren't used to the blocks and had slow starts and yet still somehow managed to catch up...

Apparently I've got higher than normal testosterone 😳
I've never really thought about it 🤔is it strange or more common than people think 🤔
I only found out when I was having fertility problems.

Michael Johnson knows he can’t come out and shout they are cheats but watching him on previous days he never wants to give them the kudos

Never got to watch final on bbc as we had sturgeons briefing on Covid for about 10 hours 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️🤦‍♀️🤦‍♀️

MJ knows it's not fair.

I'm sure Johnson is an old school athlete like Thompson. He knows damn well that a mediocre man can beat an elite woman.

This is what I find so frustrating. I don't know anyone who is passionate about athletics who thinks this is fair.

@MoltenLasagne

Is anyone else getting the rage for the amount of misinformation and downright lying that continues to go on about this?

The facts are there in the IOC ruling that these restrictions only apply to virilised XY athletes with dsd. Why do the BBC and all other media organisations refuse to call it out explicitly as it is? I genuinely cannot comprehend whats in it for them...

Yes. You have to search for the facts outside of the mainstream. Starting to remind me of accounts of media in the GDR and Eastern Bloc countries, when people had to illegally access TV signals from the west!

When I started the thread yesterday I really wasn't sure if the Namibian athletes were male or female. News reports all talk about them being female or simply having "naturally high testosterone".

A quick search for the IOC rules showed my suspicions were right and that they are impacted by the DSD rules because they are male.

Most people don't know enough to be suspicious and will simply think it's unfair, and 'aren't these poor women beimg treated awfully, we should do something about it'. This is a lie that our national broadcaster is pushing.

It makes me so angry that I worry my head might detach from my body and shoot off into the atmosphere like a firework

@santabetterwashhishands. . even women with higher levels than normal of testosterone don't come close to the levels that the IOC requires athletes with 46XY DSD coupled with a material androgenising
effect arising from that condition to reduce their levels too.

This diagram is a useful illustration.

Apparently I've got higher than normal testosterone

And, as a woman, it results in endrocrine imbalance, not an athletic advantage.

But - let’s just say that you were at the Olympics and flagged under the high testosterone rules. Pragmatically they’d be no where near the male range. But even if they were (impossible) further testing would reveal you were XX and if the testosterone wasn’t from doping no one would ever hear about you. You could run any event you chose.

Can anyone link to the clip with Michael Johnson talking about this? I’d love to hear it but can’t find it on bbc website.

They replayed most of it on tonight's BBC One highlights show with Clare Balding and Alex Scott. Try about 75 minutes in. I think it was on about 8.45 in the live broadcast.