Testosterone question

[Binglebong]

World Netball have put out a ruling On Tuesday, the governing body announced that 'those recorded as female at birth irrespective of gender identity, and transgender athletes who can establish... that they have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone at any time' are eligible to play in women's netball competition as part of their 'participation and inclusion' policy. .

Very welcome, and very like several others. But it is the line that they have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone at any time that has got me confused. My understanding (and I am rubbish at biology) is that
males and females both have testosterone from very young, possibly from in the womb. In which case every person on the planet has experienced the biological effects of testosterone. I understand what they mean but surely this unclear language is opening them up to more legal challenges (there will inevitably be some but no point asking for more!).

So it's really two questions - what age does testosterone start to affect a body and is the language used trying to be gentle but instead unclear?

Thank you!

Edited to remove accidentally link.

Yes, much easier to say 'boys and men' but I guess they want to exclude those that might have DSDs that slip through the net. Which is quite right.

'Tortured syntax' as my English Uni Tutor used to say.

Seems like a very cleverly worded policy. The are not excluding trans women entirely but the onus is on the athlete to prove they have no material advantage from having been born male. The burden of proof lies with the trans woman rather than with the governing body. Whilst IANAL I suspect it would be very hard to argue against legally because in principle it seems very fair and logical.

But as they have it it's open to interpretation. From my (brief!) Google there doesn't seem to be a consensus on when testosterone starts it's effect. Could they claim that a pre puberty male has not been affected or is it any male child from birth?

You're right.

Boy babies are on average larger and more muscular than girls. While 'the effects of testosterone' start affecting the embryo shortly after conception, sex differences are evident from birth. It's generally accepted that the strength advantages of being male aren't big enough to warrant separation until puberty but, nonetheless, there's a reason why we insist boys mustn't hit girls from primary school age.

If the association meant "not have experienced any part of male puberty", they should have said so,

Well it only applies to those born male so we don't need to worry about it impacting born women, even though both sexes have some level of testosterone. It might make it virtually impossible for any male-born person to qualify which would be a wee shame! The main thing is, does it protect the governing body from being successfully sued/prosecuted for discrimination? I hope it does.

When my DCs were small I think there was a theory that boys have an increase in testosterone at age 4 to 5, but I'm not sure whether this is still thought to be the case. There is a burst in the first 6 months after birth though, so virtually all males will have been exposed to testosterone.

I suspect they are either trying to exclude all males, but still trying to seem trans-inclusive, or they think that any puberty-suppresed male child (God help him) would be okay.

Per their FAQ, they are excluding trans women entirely but are open to natal women who ID as NB or trans men if they haven't experienced the effects of testosterone:

Trans Women (those recorded as male at birth) are not eligible to participate in
International Level Women’s Netball Competition.

Trans Men (those recorded as female at birth) are not eligible to participate in
International Level Women’s Netball Competition unless they can establish to World Netball’s satisfaction that they have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone at any time.

Non-binary athletes who were recorded as female at birth and who have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone at any time are eligible to participate in International Level Women’s Netball Competition

[end quote]

Note that trans men must "establish to World Netball’s satisfaction that they have not experienced the biological effects of testosterone at any time" whereas there is no need to establish that for female NB athletes. I'm guessing that means that trans men will need to sign some kind of statement and provide medical records whereas NB women will be presumed to comply and the onus will be on someone to complain and provide some evidence that the NB woman in question has taken testosterone.

OP, I agree with you that the wording is bad. I think they mean that the ppl have not taken supplemental testosterone (in addition to whatever their body produces) but agree that it's not clear. In any event, I think the FAQ makes their policy a bit clearer.

https://netball.sport/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/FAQ-Participation-and-Inclusion-Policy.pdf

I hope the actual policy has better wording and that's just the press release trying to simplify it for general consumption? I agree it's a bit vague if not.

If the association meant "not have experienced any part of male puberty", they should have said so.

Are they also trying to exclude girls and women who have used testosterone as well, since it would be doping and present a risk to women who haven't?

"Transgender athletes" surely includes women, doesn't it?
It's very odd wording.

And I would agree that women experience the biological effects of endogenous testosterone.

Just say "women only", World Netball. Netball was adapted from basketball specifically for women.

Yes. @GenderlessVoid provides a better explanation.

Thanks for looking the policy up!

Isn’t it so that the players who were female at birth but are transitioning to male identifying with testosterone don’t have an unfair advantage? Rather than the other way round? So if they start down the male hormone route they can’t play on the women’s team anymore.

Hapoy to be told I’m wrong

Why couldn't it say: women (those recorded female at birth) are eligible unless they have ever taken exogenous testosterone or similar.
Obviously worded more formally, but that is what the policy amounts to.

Having moaned about the wording, I will now say how delighted I am that World Netball has reverted to women only. Please follow suit, England Netball.

I’m just thankful they’ve not used that ridiculous phrase ‘sex assigned at birth’

Genderless’ clarification looks very positive.

And yes, even at the age of 6 male athletes show advantages over the female athletes of the same age. Plus there is an expected height advantage that has been identified with male people who have puberty blockers. Just like CAIS athletes grow tall.

It does seem very confusing, but on the bright side it appears confusing by mistake not by intent which we have suffered way too much of. It's aalmost refreshing that it looks to be genuine.

I think there was a trail/lawsuit in America many decades ago, possibly the start of cigarettes and nicotine coming under legal scruinty. Please forgive me if I get the details wrong. The giant company defending their product against the harm it was being sued for had a highly regarded expert witness Doctor. This Doctor testified that users only had a few parts per million of a chemical from the product in their bloodstream. Far too little to possibly cause any harm. The lawyer for the people injured suing the company asked the expert Doctor how much testosterone there is the the avergae man and woman. The expert Doctor said ( and I'm making the numbers up because I can't remember them ) something along the lines of women less than 10, men around 20 parts per BILLION in their blood. "And these few parts per billion make the difference between a man and a woman right?" the expert Doctor had to agree.
This was all happening in front of a jury. The parts per billion example blew the parts per million excuse well and truly out of the water.
Perhaps someone who knows could correct all my remembering mistakes please. It could have been thallidomide not cigarettes.
Testosterone is very powerfull stuff.