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 am not saying we should be kind @viques. I'm saying that is the undercurrent here - poor things didn't know they were male, must have been a terrible shock, blah blah blah.

I'm sick of people appealing to female socialisation.

@nolongersurprised

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

There's a substantial difference between being CAIS (complete) and PAIS (partial).

It seems there are times when people are described as complete when they are partial.

@TurquoiseBaubles

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

It was. I did feel for the women who ran in the 2016 Rio Olympics, and wondered how they felt watching . Poor Lyndsey and the others. They have the moral victory that the blatant unfairness of their result must have influenced the new ruling, but it’s a bitter pill to swallow.

You can sympathise with East German athletes in the 70s without thinking it was right for them to take drugs.

@Clymene

I am not saying we should be kind *@viques*. I'm saying that is the undercurrent here - poor things didn't know they were male, must have been a terrible shock, blah blah blah.

I'm sick of people appealing to female socialisation.

I’m with you Clymene , sorry I took your post at face value, it’s hard to keep up with who is where on this starting line.

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

By focusing on the individual and their emotions you are ignoring those around them. When they were put forward a woman who fought, trained, and sacrificed for years had her dreams smashed. When they compete all those around them who have done the same and have all their countries hopes placed on them, whose lives may be improved hugely by a win, have their chance removed by an competitor with an unfair advantage. Always 'be kind and let this man win' never 'be kind and give women a fair competition'.

By focusing on the individual and their emotions you are ignoring those around them.

Quite. You need to try to "be kind" to everyone. Balancing our everyone's needs.

Not just be kind to the person currently standing in front of you crying. Or having a soft-focus documentary made about them.

Always 'be kind and let this man win' never 'be kind and give women a fair competition'.

No, the argument is kindly insist that they follow the rules which should prioritise fair competition.

The other advantage of cheek swabbing would be accurate data on how many XY athletes there are in women’s sport.

The over representation of CAIS is based on data from the 1996 Olympics, which put it at a rate of 1 in 1000, as opposed to 1 in 20,000 of the population. But it was only small numbers overall. So if we had data on all elite sports then we could accurately assess this properly. What if 50% of high jumpers are CAIS? Or pole vaulters? Then it could be argued accurately about any advantage that might be conferred.

The Semenya ruling showed that women are disadvantaged by lack of research.

Discussion of CAIS on this thread is pragmatic.

Oh don't worry viques. Fast moving thread.

By focusing on the individual and their emotions you are ignoring those around them.

No I'm not.
I've said repeatedly, that they shouldn't be in the womens races. I also have enormous sympathy for these particular runners and won't get on board with the vitriol against these teenagers. They're not the same as the Laura Hubards in the games.

The over representation of CAIS is based on data from the 1996 Olympics, which put it at a rate of 1 in 1000, as opposed to 1 in 20,000 of the population. But it was only small numbers overall. So if we had data on all elite sports then we could accurately assess this properly

Agreed. I'm currently relaxed about CAIS participation. But I feel massively underinformed, and am not that confident in my position as a result.

Stigma associated with DSDs is a huge barrier to gathering data.

@PennineSpring

The BBC, like many journalists at the moment, leave out the important part of the story - these athletes are only subject to the T rules because they have XY chromosomes. If they had XX chromosomes, the rules wouldn’t apply to them.

Yes! Guardian Science Weekly did exactly that in this episode: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/science-weekly/id136697669?i=1000530361952 about the issue and kept talking about women with natural sporting advantages. They even started off by talking about Michael Phelps . Interestingly they didn’t use the word female (or male with DSD).

It talked about these women being forced to undergo operations or take medication that has side effects to compete without mentioning that the op would be testes removal or that the medication is pretty much birth control pill which many females athletes have to take routinely to control periods or prevent pregnancy.

these athletes are only subject to the T rules because they have XY chromosomes.

And they are androgen sensitive.

Whatever the arguments on this thread, that is also a very significant part of the rules.

I can’t think of another area of science where they would be so deliberately misleading.

I agree that the BBC reporting deliberately prioritises the feelings of one group of athletes over another. Because of lack of clarity Lynsey Sharp is branded a bigot, but that’s just collateral damage. The women affected barely register as people.

@Kendodd

By focusing on the individual and their emotions you are ignoring those around them.

No I'm not.
I've said repeatedly, that they shouldn't be in the womens races. I also have enormous sympathy for these particular runners and won't get on board with the vitriol against these teenagers. They're not the same as the Laura Hubards in the games.

Every one of them has cheated multiple women out of a place. Knowingly.

Mboma pb in 200

World junior best

I don’t understand how they can’t run in 400

3 people who can’t run in 400 because of testerone is too high but they can run in 200

Mboma has just got through to the final of the 200m. And they've just casually referred to 'another of the DSD athletes who's moved down to the 200m' in the next heat - Aminatou Seyni. Watching it now.

This is all so, so surreal.

@Zeugma

Mboma has just got through to the final of the 200m. And they've just casually referred to 'another of the DSD athletes who's moved down to the 200m' in the next heat - Aminatou Seyni. Watching it now.

This is all so, so surreal.

Yeah both the Namibian athletes got through to the final. The Nigerien, Seyni, didn’t.

Michael Johnston really didn’t want to discuss mboma at all

Farce this is. Can’t run in the 400 so drop to 200

Of course this is logical

Testerone advantage disappears into the ether

What a shame for the women who would have gone through

This is fucking up me watching and enjoying women’s sport for mev

Yeah, those Namibian athletes will have a massive advantage in sprinting events

I mean they DO have a massive advantage!

I just watched it and wtf.