Barbra Banda

[Jezzz]

Does anyone have any information about the actual sex of this person?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-12282149/amp/Zambia-striker-told-play-Womens-World-Cup-despite-failing-gender-eligibility-test.html

If indeed there is an unfair advantage going on here, and Zambia do well, it's not likely to be just one player at the next tournament, is it? As seen in athletics at Rio - once the loophole is known then more players with the same advantage will be scouted by teams who think "well if they can do it, so can we".

Don’t forget either that in Australia, if you don’t word your social media just right, you will have your social media post censored in Australia, probably a letter from the commissioner for online safety and maybe a police visit.

This is incredibly concerning how censorious Australia has become.

As ever, 'inclusive' means 'inclusive of males', because if you include males in a competition for women you will de facto exclude females.

The 'male' is silent, as is so often the case

I remember pursuing various internet links a good couple of years ago when there was some other story about Banda, and concluding that yes, it’s another Semenya situation.

The 'woman with naturally high testosterone' line has been incredibly successful in pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.

Oh and just a note for those getting concerned about ‘genital inspections’ of athletes. I have a friend who volunteers at the Olympics, and was horrified to find out that his job was sitting with athletes after events waiting to watch them pee as part of the drug testing routine. So I guess athletes to get used to all sorts of indignities in order to prove eligibility to compete.

@Helleofabore

Do you think Tickle Vs Giggle might be the case which, win or lose, forces the Australian public to face up to the fact that there is a clash between women's rights and men's privileges?

The point about censorship is a good one, Australia, NZ and Canada are all like that and it's stymieing progress for the sane side of the argument. Makes you wonder, though, how would this case even be reported? "Woman wins right to inclusion on female-only app"? It would sound bonkers unless you explained that Tickle was male.

https://www.givemesport.com/88029892-africa-cup-of-nations-barbra-banda-reportedly-excluded-due-to-manly-body/

from article:
"situation is similar to that of South Africa’s Caster Semenya, who is currently unable to compete across a number of distances due to the World Athletics regulations for athletes with differences of sex development" in women's track and field.

Account to a wise poster elsewhere:

What GiveMeSport leaves out is that the WA regulations only apply to XY athletes with a small number of conditions that exclusively affect the sex development of males.

To clarify, the men testers watch the men pee and the women testers watch the women pee. Another example of where sex matters.

But yes, you’re right, drug testing alone doesn’t lend itself to any dignity, it’s just part of what elite athletes go through. And given sex can be verified in nearly all cases by a saliva swab for karyotype, sex verification is not remotely undignified.

'Excluded due to "manly body".

That's the trouble with men.they have manly bodies.

Given that sports people suffer the indignity of having to be watched having a wee for the love of their sport and desire to participate a cheek swab would be a walk in the park.

If all it takes is a cheek swab then this whole farce needs to end immediately. It's so simple to do so why aren't they doing it? It's as if they don't want to actually know how many men are currently being described as women with high testosterone.
people.

By they i don't mean the individuals but the organisations responsible for these things.

It's just so obviously, glaringly, blatantly un-fucking-fair that I want to scream.

As far as I can see the logic seems to be "men can be easily caught out using cheek swabs" combined with "men make a huge fuss when they're caught out" plus "it's not going to cause a problem for anyone except women if we just let them have what they want".

Not only that, but when surveyed, the vast majority of women support sex verification testing.

Thanks to poster who said it's just a cheek swab.

So what should happen is this. When an athlete registers with their sports association a cheek swab is taken to confirm sex alongside their name, date of birth etc.

If they reach international level this is taken again and held alongside their details, very simple.

All this drug testing is important to stop cheats. Let's not forget people like Semenya are taking drugs to reduce their testosterone.
Honestly you couldn't make it up!

Cheek swabbing used to be standard until around 1996/97. It was changed to allow male people to compete in the female category if they had a difference of sex development.

I think you've accurately described how the whole world works 😥

Imagine how the majority of the players must feel. They are pretty much gagged from talking about it or face unrelenting abuse on social media.

Was that for the CAIS type of DSD? Surely they must have anticipated people like Semenya. Or they just didn't care.

This might help.

www.nature.com/articles/gim2000258.pdf?origin=ppub&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=CONR_PF018_ECOM_GL_PHSS_ALWYS_DEEPLINK&utm_content=textlink&utm_term=PID100045542&CJEVENT=f4d4c8630a0411ed831b01a80a1c0e11

From the article "At the time of testing, all female athletes at the Atlanta Games were offered a questionnaire written in both English and French asking whether in their view testing of females should be continued in future Olympics and whether or not they were made anxious by the testing procedure.18 Of the 928 athletes who responded, 82% felt that testing should be continued and 94% indicated that they were not made anxious by the procedure. Forty-six athletes were made "anxious" by the testing requirements that preceded their competitive events. No males were found to masquerade as females, and all females who were found to be SRY positive competed. While a similar proportion of females failed the test as in previous Olympics (Table 2), it is noteworthy that on this occasion no false positive tests were found and no athlete was barred from competition.'

So, 82% of the women answered that they felt sex testing should continue when surveyed at the 1996 Olympics. This was ignored.

In 1996, 8 of the 'female' competitors were found to have a DSD. 7 were CAIS and 1 was 5ARD. This was a rate of 1 in 423 and hence you will see it said that CAIS athletes are found in higher proportions in the female sports categories than in society in general.

Therefore, future discussions will be about whether these athletes do or do not have an advantage. That will be one of the most difficult decisions really. However, this article does point out that 5ARD athletes were still competing as female athletes in the Olympics.

OFFS...

It's actually a really simple decision. Males always have an advantage in sports invented to showcase male athletic strengths. The entire reason for creating women's categories in the first place was to allow women to shine. It's the source of the advantage as much as the size of it which is the reason that the category excluded males. Women cannot be men, or match men, no matter how hard they train. Therefore all males should be excluded.

It's simple to determine who is male or female in cases of doubt.
It's fairer to exclude males as a class than as individuals or subgroups.

It only gets complicated because of some people's insistence that female sport can be a consolation prize for men who can't compete, or aren't "really" men, because fairness and a level playing field is optional for women's competition. Disabled men do not compete against able-bodied women (they would beat them in some cases because - male advantage), and having certain DSDs is comparable to having a disability. (Not 46 xy, 5-ARD, though.) Women's sport celebrates exceptional females at any level of competition. A CAIS athlete is neither female, nor exceptional, except in comparison to other athletes with the same condition. Fairness in the competition is more important than an individual's disappointment at not being able to compete.

I'm not haranguing anyone on these boards, I'm referring to the attitude of the sporting authorities. There is evidence of a women's version of the Olympic Games in ancient times, but the modern Olympics was conceived as a celebration of masculinity and the male form. Women were to be decorative, or crown the heroes, not to compete. But Alice Milliat and her friends had other ideas!

Thanks Hellofabore. They completely ignored what the female athletes said, that's so frustrating.

I think the female category should be just for females, draw a very hard line. Maybe it's tough for males with CAIS but they can join in the push for an open category.

So fucking angry.
This is Semenya all over again.

I don't love this (what with BB being male and all) but can't bring myself to get too excited about it, at the end of the day there was still room for 22 other players in BB's country's world cup squad, and whilst he'll doubtless bang in a couple of goals I can't think that the rest of the team will be strong enough to influence who qualifies for later rounds etc.