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

There must be some rare DSDs not on the list that they could now be scouting for.

But I guess the statement of principles shows the intent. I assume they would extend the list of DSDs based on them if issues started arising again.

I edited my post @ViceLikeBlip so not sure why that version posted

The women who are being impacted - who are losing out on medals, funding and opportunities- are black and white.

My sympathy lies with them - not with the men, black or white, who are invested in cheating those women.

@NecessaryScene

Why can't they compete with males?

Because reproductive function doesn't determine success in sport. It's the body.

We classify sports by sex, but it's a proxy for the two body types. Male-bodied people and female-bodied people are what we care about. Not the genitals, the genes, the gametes. The body type.

Those XY CAIS individuals have female-type bodies. Slightly non-standard - enough to be statistically different from the female norm, but a squillion miles away fom male bodies. Asking them to compete with men is as daft as asking any woman to compete with men. Maybe they're 0.1% closer, but that still leaves 14.9% gap.

And it's not viable to make a whole new classification for that small population.

Those individuals are not like Semenya, who I agree has a nearly-totally-standard male body, and hence should compete with other male-bodied individuals.

But they are not female. And why not a new classification? Lots of different body types in the paraolympics with different classifications.

And yes, body type is a direct reflection of reproductive function and does deyermine success in sport.

I would go back to cheek swabbing with the caveat that any XY person wanting to compete in the female category needs to give evidence for their inclusion. Only those who haven’t gone through a male puberty would be eligible, ie only those who aren’t androgen sensitive at all which would include CAIS and exclude all of those XY DSD athletes having to faff around with their male levels of testosterone.

I don’t agree that many of those athletes would be surprised by the chromosome results - never having any kind of menstrual bleed would be unusual in an athlete of Olympic age.

@NecessaryScene

There must be some rare DSDs not on the list that they could now be scouting for.

But I guess the statement of principles shows the intent. I assume they would extend the list of DSDs based on them if issues started arising again.

yes, that's probably true.

And realistically, I suppose and a person with XX plus SRY would have appeared as male all along, and it would be unusual for them to consider competing as women when there weren't ever any doubts that they were men. It would be a clear intent to find a loophole if they did.

I actually feel really bad for these runners and think people should have a bit more respect and sensitivity.
Imagine you had lived your whole life thinking you were a perfectly normal female only to discover you aren't and all the problems and consequences that flow from that.
These women are NOT Laura Hubert, they're not trans, they have a real, measurable condition, they're body isn't right. Just imagine trying to come to terms with that.

All of the above isn't to say they should just be competing against women btw. Their situation is very complicated, but they're also teenagers with the world looking at their bodies and criticising them.

If CAIS did not confer a significant advantage then the prevalence of this condition amongst elite athletes would be the same as in the general female population (0.003%).

Be kind

Be kind

Be kind

@NecessaryScene do you know the source for that interview? It’s absolutely fascinating.

I would go back to cheek swabbing

Perhaps this is the best way forward, a simple xx or xy classification.
Anything else can go in a different category.

@NecessaryScene I’ve found it

@Tibtom

If CAIS did not confer a significant advantage then the prevalence of this condition amongst elite athletes would be the same as in the general female population (0.003%).

And then it comes down to working out what those advantages are with research. If it is minimal and doesn’t threaten the integrity of the classification, then by excluding CAIS you just add fuel to the argument that being XY doesn’t make much of a difference.

However there is clear research at the moment that examines advantages conferred by male puberty and testosterone.

Their situation is very complicated, but they're also teenagers with the world looking at their bodies and criticising them.

In one of Ross Tuckers recent Science of Sport podcasts, he said IIRC that these athletes had seen a sudden huge performance increase post-16 and suggested this is commonly seen in boys. (I will have to go back and check his exact words).

I also think if you’re going to put yourself into the public arena and try to make a living out of your sport under dubious circumstances, you have to prepare yourself for the inevitable public scrutiny.

But they are not female.

You seem to be falling into the same labelling error as trans activists.

"Transwomen have to compete as women because they're women".
"CAIS 46XY males have to compete as males because they're male".

The point of the sports classification isn't the label - woman or male. It's the body type. In an edge-case, where the label may have some little asterisk on it, you have to go back to the principle. What was the classification created for in the first place?

Even if you say a transwoman is a woman, they don't have a female-type body, so they compete with men.

Even if you say a 46XY is male, they have a female-type body, so they compete with women.

And why not a new classification? Lots of different body types in the paraolympics with different classifications.

It's possible. But there are a squillion different variations that are more significant, and that would allow more participation. More height and weight classification in more events. Maybe race classification for long-distance running to give European-ancestry people more of a chance. Why pick on CAIS?

46XY CAIS is one of the more fascinating bits of variation of women - the "male woman" - in the way it works. But in terms of actual physical impact, it is very minimal. Compared to height, weight, race, or any sort of disability, it really just is one factor that is far from determinitive of ability. Normal women can certainly beat the 46XY CAIS in a way they can't the 46XY 5-ARD.

If we did see super-strong domination - podiums filled with 46XY CAIS athletes as we did with 5-ARD - then I'd reconsider somewhat. But a push to exclude them at this point feels like it's ideological rather than solving a real problem.

@NecessaryScene

There must be some rare DSDs not on the list that they could now be scouting for.

But I guess the statement of principles shows the intent. I assume they would extend the list of DSDs based on them if issues started arising again.

Undoubtably. The number of athletes with DSD is already a statistical anomaly when you compare the proportion of people with DSD in the general population with the proportion of people with DSD in athletics.

It’s a relatively cheap way to win medals, much cheaper than setting up an expensive and complicated national system for scouting and identifying young promising female athletes, nurturing them, training them, providing them with nutritional support, sports psychology, physio, training facilities, equipment and international experience for years in the hope that they will eventually beat other young women to an Olympic gold medal.

It might be that the CAIS advantage is related to being “not female” rather than chromosomally male - something as simple as not ever having to train through periods and other hormonal fluctuations

I watched the heats last night.

There are four "women with high testosterone" who have switched to the 200 m. At least two only started running 200 m in he last few weeks, all four made it into the next round, three posted personal bests (presumably because they had not competed officially in 200 m before).

Most infuriatingly one broke the "women's" national record, and the "women's" junior world record, and did it easily.

I'm sick of the gaslighting, I keep reading these athletes are woman with abnormally high testosterone levels, NO they are men with XY chromosomes and normal testosterone levels.

It's all getting beyond ridiculous now.

I also think if you’re going to put yourself into the public arena and try to make a living out of your sport under dubious circumstances, you have to prepare yourself for the inevitable public scrutiny.

However look at how much athletes have been exploited for political purposes, and how much pressure can be applied to ensure that they compete.

Having said that it’s really not clear what Namibia thought would happen here.

I also think if you’re going to put yourself into the public arena and try to make a living out of your sport under dubious circumstances

How do you know they put themselves forward? They might have been put under huge pressure to be there competing for their country.

And as I said in my first post, having sympathy for their situation, and yes, be kind, isn't the same as saying they should be competing against women.

And to add to my fury, the commentators kept referring to them as "athletes who aren't allowed to compete at 400 m because they are women with naturally high testosterone levels " - which, if you don't know the background, sounds really unfair.

We are back to pronouns being Rohypnol

As an aside, it was great to watch the 800 m and know for sure that all the competitors were actual women!

The number of athletes with DSD is already a statistical anomaly when you compare the proportion of people with DSD in the general population with the proportion of people with DSD in athletics.

I'd like to bet it's only a statistical anomaly in the womens events, not in the mens.

The point of the sports classification isn't the label - woman or male. It's the body type. In an edge-case, where the label may have some little asterisk on it, you have to go back to the principle. What was the classification created for in the first place?

Agree.

@Clymene

Be kind

Be kind

Be kind

To whom?

The women who have trained and sacrificed their family life, personal life, career development , physical and mental health for years because they want to push themselves to achieve the ultimate accolade from their peers and to be acknowledged as such by the world?

Those who cynically take an aberration of chromosomes and exploit it?

Or those who simply decide that their personal desire for glory trumps any sporting ideal of fairness ?