Caster Semenya out of world 5000m as Coe signals tougher female sport rules

[Helleofabore]

Sean Ingle’s article today is very clear on more than one point.

amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jul/21/caster-semenya-out-of-world-5000m-as-coe-signals-tougher-female-sport-rules

“We’ve always been guided by the science, and the science is pretty clear: we know that testosterone is the key determinant in performance,” he said.

“I’m really over having any more of these discussions with second-rate sociologists who sit there trying to tell me or the science community that there may be some issue. There isn’t. Testosterone is the key determinant in performance.”

Coe insisted it was his responsibility to “protect the integrity of women’s sport”.

“We have two categories in our sport: one is age and one is gender,” he added. “Age because we think it’s better that Olympic champions don’t run against 14-year-olds in community sports. And gender because if you don’t have a gender separation, no woman would ever win another sporting event.”

and then there was this below about Caster Semenya. No more tip toeing around. It is like the new wording being considered by Coe has led to sticking to facts.

Semenya had previously won the world title at 800m three times, including in her last appearance at London 2017, but is now barred from running international events from 400m to a mile unless she takes medication to reduce her testosterone levels.

That is because, as a 46 XY athlete with a difference of sex development, the Court of Arbitration of Sport has ruled that Semenya has an advantage over the female competitors against whom she races.

Disorders of sexual development should be treated like any other health condition in sport - through all the carefully developed categories used in the paralympics.

Not sure, but I feel the wording of that quote is pretty ambiguous in itself.

5ARD is an exclusively male condition and only affects XY males. DSDs are sex specific (proving the sex binary).

An interesting question, Quattro.
One would think that any XY people should compete with males - after all, they have all the myriad of other hard-baked male advantages, incl skeletal advantages.

And they are not XX, which seems to be the only sensible working definition of female.

But the authorities don't seem minded to support women on this one.

It's men in charge of the decisions. And, whatever we say, they still seem convinced that we are no more than poorly developed men.

Do CAIS women have any of the advantages of testosterone though? I assumed that since their bodies cannot process it they would not be able to be advantaged by it and that phenotypically they are no different to XX women.

@Signalbox
CAIS women don't reap the benefits from testosterone or male puberty but equally they don't have the disadvantages that come from female puberty - ie periods. They are biological males, technically. Less different than males with normal in utero development. So my opinion is that while it's ok to treat them as women for almost all purposes - they look like women, they may have been socialised as women - it's not fair to allow them to compete in women's sport. That may seem harsh to some, but the category of female/women is supposed to exclude male advantage. Which arguably they have.

I don’t understand why DSD conditions aren’t classified as a set of para athletic categories. That would make the most sense.

Leave the women’s category for the people with XX chromosomes and female puberty.

Of course, that’s not where caster wants to compete. Is it?

I have very little sympathy for Caster Semenya. Their continued presence in sporting competition shows an amazing lack of respect for women and our sports.

From their mid teens, with no sign of menstruation and a breaking voice, they and the adults around them would have known something was wrong. That was the time to channel Caster's energies into other activities.

Questions about Caster's sex would have been asked locally, long before they appeared on the international scene and it's quite unbelievable that the SA authorities would have allowed Caster to represent the country without being sure of their sex.

@CharlieAndTooManyCharacters
Some DSDs are physically disabling - Klinefelters syndrome, I believe is one - but some, like 46XY ARD, are not. Caster et al just aren't that special as athletes.
Margaret Wambui has called for a special category for DSD athletes...

runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/olympic-medallist-wants-dsd-athlete-category-for-track-and-field-events/#:~:text=Kenyan%20800m%20runner%20Margaret%20Wambui,athletes%20from%20middle%2Ddistance%20events&text=Kenya's%20Margaret%20Wambui%20recently%20said,differences%20of%20sexual%20development%20(DSD)

..which does at least acknowledge the unfairness of competing in the women's category, but I don't see what the justification would be for a special category for male people whose external genitals are non-standard in appearance.

@MissPollysFitDolly that's exactly what raises my suspicions - I’m pretty sure all those involved with Casters training and entry into competition were fully aware.

Was this always an issue in sports? That photo of 3 athletes all with the same condition in the top 3 places just looks so wrong.

There are pictures of Caster at school wearing a male uniform. They knew.

It doesn’t really need to be disabling to require special consideration and categorisation as a para athletic sport. It’s more that it really needs to be treated separately in its entirely.

A single DSD category would probably not be fair because the various conditions within it have extremely different effects. So sub categories would be useful.

Competing in the women’s category just shouldn’t even be a question for people with XY chromosomes.

Given that caster does not actually have female genitalia, it was probably ambiguous right from the outset. But they went with assigning female sex because there was no observable penis.

I doubt the results of chromosome testing for elite sport were a surprise in the least.

@CaveMum
thanks for that video! If it wasn’t so sad for the female athletes in the competition, it would be hilarious. S/he is not even trying to appear female, the clothes, the man spreading, the dismissive attitude to women past ( and present, to the interviewer) is just 100% male.

I do think the determination has to be more nuanced that just chromosomes, though. there are disorders that include XY where they don't have the vital SRY gene on it, or it's inactive; equally, there are disorders where an XX person does have the SRY gene that has ended up on an X-chromosome. I don't know whether either of these individual ends up developing completely/indistinguishably from a female (in the first XY sry- case), or a male (in the second, XX sry+ case), or whether there are still some potential extra advantages, or things missing.

I think there is some evidence that CAIS women do have some further advantages from having XY chromosomes as well, despite not being able to respond to testosterone. And of course, the lack of female hormonal issues, periods etc is also a very good point, which I'd not really considered enough before. I still think there would be an argument for allowing them in women's races, but I'm sure eventually the research will determine what the advantages or not are.

I think it needs to be an individual assessment, however difficult that is for the athletes.

About time common sense was used if an athlete has a level of T that is similar to genetic males and a Y chromosome then it is not appropriate for them to run under the female category.

The lack of periods is something I’ve mentioned before in the mixed sports situation. I work in horse racing and have been a follower of equestrian sport since I was a child.

Equestrian sports are held up as a bastion of fair competition - men and women competing on level terms, etc.

However, what is overlooked is the “social aspects” of sex. The fact is that, in the main, men overwhelmingly dominate at the top levels of the sport. Yes women do win on a regular basis, but if you looked right now at, for example, showjumping, men make up the entire Top 25 of riders.

data.fei.org/Ranking/Search.aspx?rankingCode=S_WR

In eventing it’s more evenly split with 15 men v 10 women in the Top 25 and in Dressage it’s currently more female focussed with only 8 men in the Top 25.

However when you look at statistics on people who actually ride at all levels it’s something like 80% women to 20% men. My suggestion is that men dominate at the top levels in the same way they do across other areas of life - no training interrupted by periods or pregnancy; if they do have kids then their wife/partner does the childcare; little/no caring responsibilities for other family members, etc.

So whilst these sports are equal on the face of it, there’s still a “sex penalty” to be paid for women.

@CaveMum
However when you look at statistics on people who actually ride at all levels it’s something like 80% women to 20% men. My suggestion is that men dominate at the top levels in the same way they do across other areas of life - no training interrupted by periods or pregnancy; if they do have kids then their wife/partner does the childcare; little/no caring responsibilities for other family members, etc.

Precisely. This is why, even if you could in some way reverse all the physical advantages conferred by male puberty, it would still not be fair to women to let men compete in a female category. To add to your list of men's social advantages: boys have much greater exposure to sport, more opportunity to practice with mates, more teams and clubs, more role models and more societal approval of their participation in sport. Further on down the line - more financial backing, more public interest. Etc. I could go on!

Here it is - clearly someone that was socialised and thinks of themselves as male:

Sadly I am not in the least bit surprised. Most people are poorly educated, particularly in human biology and/or stupid so never look any further than the propaganda they are fed. Anyone with eyes can tell who is male and who is female (with the Y chromosome being male determining in humans) except of course in the very rare cases of a full CAIS DSD - none of whom are known to be elite athletes I note - because they (quite rightly IMO) are socialized and live as women and it doesn't convey any advantage in women's sports - unlike the other DSDs that are much more common andso over-represented in women's athletics, such as 5ARD like CS et al, where they do experience a testosterone-fueled puberty and all the physical strength, cardiac, muscle etc upticks that that entails.

Everyone sees this. Everyone knows this. Same as they know TWAW is false and humans can't change sex or be born 'the wrong sex'. These are just facts of human biology. Most people have been conditioned to look away, not see it, pretend, be kind or just are too uneducated or stupid to analyse things in depth. Refreshing to see Seb Coe (who is a doctor?) stop pretending.

although it would be interesting research to see how much of an advantage CAIS women had, or those with XY (sry-) as they would be on the whole typically female appearing, and socialised as girls certainly during childhood where they would be indistinguishable from XX girls. The difference and/or advantages later on would be primarily the fact that they don't have to deal with periods, pregnancy, hormonal cycles etc., or potentially other physical advantages that might come from having a Y chromosome that doesn't cause normal male puberty for (varied) reasons.

I think the potential lack of female biological 'penalties' is separate both from any additional physical advantages from having a y-chromosome, and from the huge issue of male social advantages, from encouragement into sport, opportunities, socialisation to be competitive, expectations to be sporty, dominant, etc.

@QuattroFromagio
Yes, the social advantages are separate when it comes to considering CAIS women's eligibility, but the physical advantages - or rather, the absence of female disadvantages - should count IMO. Also, CAIS women do grow taller than average, I believe? Height is an advantage in many, many sports. But I do accept this is the least clearcut DSD situation. I just tend to favour a simple rule that does not depend on a case-by-case assessment. Case-by-case means making acceptance into/rejection from the female category very personal and has the potential to cause hurt. Also, if CAIS women are included, what about PAIS women? CAIS women and PAIS women, it might be argued, are on a spectrum. Whereas only males have a Y chromosome, so that is a cleaner and clearer place to draw the line and it upholds the principle of no males in female sport. We have to be wary of falling into the "be kind" trap. If a male is uncompetitive with other males due to a DSD, well that's just life. No reason to penalise women in order to soften the blow for the male.
I know absolutely nothing about the XX + sry gene DSDs, which is why I haven't mentioned it!

I think that is the problem though, that there ARE edge cases that don't fit neatly into the men have Y chromosomes, women don't. The XX sry+ is a good example of that. And once you start looking at things like that individually, then you have to also consider individually the XY individuals with no virilisation, possibly because they are sry- or it's inactive, or they are CAIS or whatever. I don't think you can just say nobody with XY is allowed, but then also say XX who have sry+ are allowed, as they'd be typical males. So once you start getting into specifics for some people, it ends up having to be a case-by-case basis. I don't think there is any other way to do it, although I really understand that it makes it personal and could be humiliating etc, especailly in the case of PAIS. But I don't think a simple xx vs xy rule will actually achieve what is wanted (in the case of DSDs. Obviously for the vast majority of people, that distinction is fine, and what needs to be used rather than any gender identity or anything!!).

In fact, I wonder if making it clear that these disorders are edge cases, very rare and needing to be looked at individually to make a biological decision about competing or not, might actually help the arguments that are so often presented by certain groups who keep trying to present "gotchas" about how you can't define women by any one thing, thinking that means there therefore isn't a workable definition. Acknowledging the edge cases might make it clearer that despite there not being a single specific definition that works for them all, doesn't negate the fact that there is ultimately a binary - and that for the vast majority of people, there is no doubt about which category you are in; for a very very small few, there might need to be further testing and decisions to determine that category. It removes the argument that because there is no one single simple definition, there can't be a category, and thus anyone can identify into that group.

About a year ago I read a link posted here which said that the area Caster comes from is prone to that particular DSD. It is well known there that some 'girls' will become men at puberty. It was totally unexceptional for Caster to develop into a man.

Before they landed on the international stage, they knew who they were.

I can't find the link now, unfortunately. It was posted on the same thread as the video upthread, and swept away any lingering discomfort I had for 'those poor athletes who knew nothing about their condition until the nasty world media outed them!'. They knew. And the local health care was well understood. They knew all along.

i've not read anything about the particular region Caster comes from ,but it is certainly known in other cultures around the world where it's a fairly common DSD: Guevedoce

(But the enormous amount of misinformation out there in even reputable newspapers etc describing the disorder is no doubt contributing to all sorts of other issues: many of them say things like "at twelve, children change naturally from female to male" or something; leaving out the crucial details that they were female-appearing only, as children, but were genetic males all along, which then becomes clear at puberty when many do go on to develop male sex characteristics).