Christine Mboma wins Diamond League 200m

[NotBadConsidering]

Christine Mboma is male. Shericka Jackson 2nd. Dina Asher-Smith came 3rd.

www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/58442621

Obviously no mention of the controversy around a male sex person running in women’s athletics by the brief summary by the BBC .

Previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4312328-Female-Namibian-runners-change-events-due-to-too-high-testosterone

At each series the prize money is as follows:

www.diamondleague.com/rules/

1st 10,000 USD
2nd 6000
3rd 3500

Allowing this male to continue to run is costing women thousands of dollars each time .

Of course this could all be stopped with a cheek swab for any athlete who got to a national (junior or senior) championships in any country.

Then these athletes would know at 16 or 17 and could decide to either compete in the male category, or put their efforts into another career.

Of course this could all be stopped with a cheek swab for any athlete who got to a national (junior or senior) championships in any country

Well no. Under current rules it’s your phenotypic presentation that determines what sex category you compete in, not your genotype. This is why the problem exists.

What would solve it is the sports governing bodies getting together and deciding whether genotype is relevant. Either it isn’t and you can’t compete if you’re xy, or a shit done of research is done to figure out what confers an advantage. Personalky I think pissing about with testosterone levels and putting limits on events is ridiculous. Just decide whether xy is allowed.

I find it considerably more offensive when news reports don’t even mention any issue at all with Mboma, and previously Semenya (notable exception Sean Ingle).

And I also find it offensive when articles that do discuss the issue (again, apart from Ingle) refer to Mboma and Semenya as “women with naturally high testosterone levels”. It’s a blatant lie that obscures the truth.

You can’t have a clear discussion without saying “Mboma is male” otherwise people can’t see the injustice of what is going on. Mboma only started competing in the 200m in the weeks before the Olympics and has already run faster than Dina Asher-Smith ever has FFS!

What would solve it is the sports governing bodies getting together and deciding whether genotype is relevant. Either it isn’t and you can’t compete if you’re xy, or a shit done of research is done to figure out what confers an advantage. Personalky I think pissing about with testosterone levels and putting limits on events is ridiculous. Just decide whether xy is allowed.

There’s been plenty of research identifying and quantifying the benefits of a male puberty to athletes.

We all know tinkering around with testosterone levels is a fig leaf.

Sporting bodies need to stop sitting on the fence and start protecting women’s sport.

And as if you illustrate my point, here is the BBC talking about another male, Francine Niyonsaba:

www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/58482920

She became the fifth-fastest woman of all time over 3,000m in Paris at the end of August

It’s gaslighting.

What would solve it is the sports governing bodies getting together and deciding whether genotype is relevant. Either it isn’t and you can’t compete if you’re xy, or a shit done of research is done to figure out what confers an advantage. Personalky I think pissing about with testosterone levels and putting limits on events is ridiculous. Just decide whether xy is allowed.

I largely agree, but they have done that research. And a cheek swab to check for XY would be step one. From there you'd check whether the condition was CAIS, which would let you through, or not.

As I understand it, the cheek swabs were stopped altogether because they were excluding CAIS, and that was determined to be unfair. They should be reinstated, with extra stages of investigation. Then Mboma and Semenya are caught early, and with far less fuss.

I agree the testosterone limit is ridiculous. If you've got the male advantage, like 5-ARD, you should be out.

But then that same rule has to apply to non-DSD 46XYs too. If they can claim "transgender" to compete, so can 5-ARD 46XYs. You can't leave that inconsistent.

At the minute the 5nmol/l rule applies to both (in athletics).

She became the fifth-fastest woman of all time over 3,000m in Paris at the end of August

It is ridiculous. And it's only a story because of the lie. Like headlines about "men giving birth". It's only news because men don't give birth, so it's a "man bites dog" sort of headline.

Except it didn't happen - you've just redefined words to create something that looks amazing, but isn't.

This is "club-level male runner runs nearly as fast as the women's world record". Which is an everyday occurrence!

The only news here is that a club-level male runner is actually being allowed into eilte female competitions. That's what should be being reported.

Well argued . I'm of the opinion that xy individuals should not compete in women's sports.

Is there a limit on testosterone levels at all at the shorter / longer distances? Or is it just the middle ones?

Is there a limit on testosterone levels at all at the shorter / longer distances? Or is it just the middle ones?

The limit for transgender athletes applies to all.

The limit for 46XY DSD athletes applies only to middle distances.

This is not World Athletics' choice - it was challenged in court and they were required to show evidence of testosterone being an advantage in women's events.

They could only show direct evidence for the events Semenya et al had competed in, because those were the only events which had males in at the time.

They will now be able to start collecting evidence about these events, with Mboma, which means they should be able to justify excluding soon.

Yes, this is ridiculous. They actually have to let males run in the events to show they have an advantage.

I still think reintroducing the XX only for women's category, with entry proven by cheek swab should be the norm. The fecking around with this is what caused the problem in the first place.

Instead of "allow everyone in unless it's proven they have an advantage" why not move to "XX only unless an individual can prove they don't have an advantage". To jeopardise an entire category of athletes for a very few who have CAIS is very unfair on the majority.

In addition, after reading what I can get my hands on over the last few weeks (which I admit isn't a lot - it's practically impossible to wade through the crap to find the facts online) I'm still not convinced that those with CAIS don't have any advantage at all.

It may be harsh, but given a choice I think all athletes with XY phenotypes should be excluded, full stop. Yes it's unfair on a very few individuals, but the alternative is unfair on the vast majority.

I'm still not convinced that those with CAIS don't have any advantage at all.

Indeed, they may well do. But it's not the overall male advantage - a virilised body.

If you wanted a separate category for CAIS, you'd also want to be having separate categories for "tall". We don't categorise at that fine a level.

Categories are only introduced for basically insurmountable advantages that would dominate. Sex, then weight in certain sports.

Height would be the next thing to look at, before more subtle things like CAIS.

But it's not the overall male advantage - a virilised body.

I agree. But they don't have a female body either, with the hormonal changes and period issues, they have some male structural advantages eg hip alignment, etc, etc.

If the category of women's sport is to be kept for women and girls, and the only way to categorically test for eligibility is a cheek swab for XX chromosomes, then that's the simplest way to go.

A few individuals with CAIS will be disadvantaged, and that will be really terrible for them. But the alternative, as it currently is being done, is disadvantaging many more.

And of course, if the male category is turned into an Open category, then it doesn’t matter if the athletes in there are XX, XY, with DSD or not.

If the category of women's sport is to be kept for women and girls, and the only way to categorically test for eligibility is a cheek swab for XX chromosomes, then that's the simplest way to go.

Right, but the "if" clause there is not true, is it? CAIS is a thing that can be tested for.

Saying "sorry, we can only do one test", because it's "simpler" isn't a brilliant argument. Where the dividing line falls ends up being rather random due to the nature of the test - where it errs from what you really want to find out.

You are allowed to have second rounds of decision making. First round can be "pass" or "go to second round", it doesn't have to be "pass" or "fail".

And just to note, we've ended up where we are because the argument for the way the genetic testing was being done, which was as per TurquoiseBaubles, was indeed basically that it was "simpler".

That was challenged in court, by excluded athletes, and they couldn't justify it.

But they tied themselves up in knots trying to fix it.

If you went back to simply that, it would fail in court the same way. There's no evidence CAIS have enough of an unfair advantage to exclude them.

But a multi-stage system starting with the genetic test could be justified, as long as you were narrowing down to the individuals with male advantages.

@CurrantTeacake

And of course, if the male category is turned into an Open category, then it doesn’t matter if the athletes in there are XX, XY, with DSD or not.

Under the World Athletics DSD regulations, Relevant Athletes (eg Mboma, Niyonsaba, Semenya, Masilingi) can compete in the male category 400m to 1 mile events if they choose.

We can have a discussion around dsd’s in sport and advantages it may confer without pointing and shouting “male” until everyone else agrees.

But what term are we left with to critically analyse the situation that female athletes find themselves in if we cannot use ‘male’ to describe these athletes?

Or should we simply keeping pointing out there DSD status? Or even worse allow the obscuring language adopted by the sports organisations that tactically take advantage of these athletes for their own gain, such as the Nambibian Olympic committee who continues to lie about their status?

How would you describe their sex status in relation to the specific topic of this thread to ensure clarity and not to perpetuate the confusion that has been allowed to occur?

Why is it not up to the people with CAIS to prove that they ^don't" have an advantage rather than the other way around?

As far as I can see the court case failed because the athletic bodies were trying to be "inclusive" so relaxed the XX rules to allow a few others in. That then became "you are allowing these XY people in so you must allow these other XY people in".

More anti-factual reporting from the BBC:

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/58482920

"Naturally high levels of testosterone....."

Now wherever does that come from, BBC?

NotBadConsidering

It is gaslighting, the sporting bodies must think we are all stupid.
Niyonsaba now holds Burundi national records at the following distances - 400m, 800m, 3000m, 2 miles, 5000m and 10000m.
I don't know any other athlete, male or female ever having that range of distances.

Jaysmith71

It gets worse when the BBC use this caption to describe Semenya, Wambui and Niyonsaba.

"All the 800m medal-winners from Rio 2016 - (left to right) Francine Niyonsaba, Caster Semenya and Kenya's Margaret Wambui - have been forced to change events by new limits on testosterone levels"

No mention of the fact that they have the same 46 XY DSD.

@Reallyreallyborednow No one is questioning your education, but yes, the information is out there about what medical conditions Mboma, Semenya and the athletes have. They are male. It is not a matter of opinion. You are just being obtuse. It is not a matter worth debating at this point.

*But what term are we left with to critically analyse the situation that female athletes find themselves in if we cannot use ‘male’ to describe these athletes?

‘Been through male puberty’ would cover it (& and exclude those with CAIS who have not had the sporting advantage of male puberty).

There is an interesting thread about this very subject on the "Lets run" forum.

www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10834669