olympics question

[StellaGreen]

Please help me here, are there any men (trans women) competing in the biological women's events in the Olympics games in Paris?
Some people say there are and others are saying there are none.
Hopefully common sense prevails and fair sport for women is being upheld at this games.

Not spending a quarter of your training time menstruating would clearly be an advantage, even if there are no height/strength differences at all.

Indeed. The point of me burbling on about CAIS isn't to rehearse the pros and cons, but to complain about how the decision makers don't have that conversation, with themselves or anybody else. To hear them go on, you'd think all these athletes were women with DSDs. Is it just too rude to let the words 'genetically male' pass anyone's lips?

I'm not advocating for or against their inclusion. I'm saying that in a sane world all of the above would be debated openly, but, instead, actual scientific facts are ignored or obfuscated.

I don't really understand why. Is it something to do with ideas about gender? Or because people are squeamish about talking about medical conditions or sex?

My guess is that it's because they are focused on the male athletes and not female athletes, and on inclusion of male athletes, not fairness for women. There is a privacy issue which is cited as a reason for silence, but that does not mean we cannot talk in general terms about the conditions rather than individual athletes.

I didn't mean to jump down your throat. Apologies.

The IBA and the IOC had a big falling out last year due to dodgy Russian money which ended up with the IOC kicking the IBA out as the recognised governing body for boxing at the Olympics. So boxing at the Olympics now falls under World Boxing rules. World Boxing is US-based and has no (that I can find) transgender or DSD policies.

I have to admit I was completely unaware of this until reading up on it over the weekend. A complete shitshow.

Great news that BmG is speaking about the boxers

I, too, have noticed this Margaux about how they preface the topic of female sport with the inclusion of male athletes. It shows accurately the direction of focus. I do wish that this era of centring males passes soon.... then I realise that it never has.

If sporting organisations were truly wanting to be transparent, they would be. Policies would be easy to find and there would be no confusion.

There would also be absolutely no directive under threat of losing the license to broadcast/publish, any valid discussion about where concerns with the policies come up. This constant attempt to shame and vilify people who discuss the issues and the athletes who are very clearly aware of their own situation and yet who still choose to disrespect the needs of female athletes for their acclaim is deplorable.

However, I think any person who thinks trying to shame a feminist board for having these discussions, including direct discussions about those athletes who make those choices that harm female athletes, is probably someone who has not considered just how misogynistic the policies they are supporting, even indirectly supporting, really is. But that is the nature of simply parroting censure that is based on emotional manipulation instead of science and material reality.

Absolutely. Even simply coping with the different stages of the menstrual cycle can be very difficult. And that is not even entering into the discussion about pregnancy.

I watched an interview with one of the female rowers yesterday who had three young children and thought how impressive she was.

And in particular avoiding the increased risk of injury at various points of the menstrual cycle.

2 male boxers taking part in female class

@ChateauMargaux

"WHERE ARE THE LEGAL CHALLENGES ON BEHALF OF WOMEN AND WHERE IS THE MEDIA CRITICISM WHERE FEMALES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR OWN CATEGORIES?"

The CAS rules on whether a member body is breaking its own regulations. So any legal challenge to FIFA about e.g. Banda, would have to demonstrate that FIFA (and the Zambian football association) broke their own rules in permitting Banda to play in women's football. Given how terminally relaxed FIFA's rules are on DSD athletes, I can't see how a challenge would succeed. Basically, if Banda can make the 5nmol/l grade, they can play on a women's team according to FIFA's rules.

The question I often ask visitors to these parts who are full of 'be kind' and 'what about the poor hurty feelz' is are you actually advocating for mixed sex boxing, because that is the logical conclusion of letting men identify into women's spaces and sports.
I'm actually horrified to discover that the IOC are prepared to answer with a resounding YES.

Did you find a policy that has that testosterone level, Laeralsilverhand?

Because I did a five minute look and couldn't find the evidence of the levels. If you found it, could you please post a link.

Because NO female athlete has to suppress their testosterone (knowing also that if a female athlete has a reading of 5.0+ mol/l, they have a high chance of having a tumour ).

@Helleofabore I thought the 5nmol/l limit was the generic IOC one applied in the absence of a sport-specific limit but I may be getting confused with the IAAF limits. Or maybe it's the WADA doping limit? It's a fucking minefield. I'll try and find where I got the number from.

Aside, a female athlete with a 5+ is far more likely to be doping than have a tumour.

It is a bin fire to work through, yes. But I was just asking if you had it to hand, if not don’t worry.

Of course, the new limit is 2.5 in some sports because they realise that 5 is for when a female person has a medical issue. But that any person thinks that the female sex category can be defined by a testosterone suppression limit is ludicrous.

I don’t disagree with you.

Well quite. I honestly struggle with the DSD issue, or at least with CAIS which seems to get a very late diagnosis in developing countries, often when an athlete is well advanced on their development pathway. I presume this is because of less access to specialist medical diagnostics and potentially cultural issues.

This is aside from the utter cynicism of sporting bodies deliberately seeking out individuals with DSDs (again, usually in developing countries) to develop them into athletes for female competition.

Not starting menstruation in early teens is a big red flag. If female then they are overtraining or anorexic. If not then male, no excuse for "backward" countries to lie beyond this age except for greed.

Can we please not refer to "backward" countries? It just makes you sound like a massive racist, which I'm sure you're not.

The average age of menarche in sub-Saharan Africa is 14.5. That's the average age, so half of girls will start later. And there are many other reasons why a girl may not menstruate other than RED-S or a DSD, the investigation of which may be delayed or inaccessible in developing countries. I have absolutely no trouble in believing that DSDs are diagnosed later (or not at all) in developing countries than in developed countries. Same as any other medical condition.

I haven’t RTFT but here’s a list of the sports and their policies. In many cases males are allowed to co Pete I’m women’s events. Whether there are any male competitors in each of them is another matter.
Note that there is no policy for boxing so males are allowed to compete with women. They just have to be “fairly matched” whatever that means.

According to a quick Google to find out what CAIS stands for :

Other signs and symptoms of CAIS include:

• Abnormally tall stature for a female during puberty.

Obviously this is an advantage even if, as you say, they perform the same as other 'abnormally tall' women. The point is that most women aren't 'abnormally tall'. As others have said not having periods is also an advantage but at the end of the day all of that is immaterial IMO as only males can suffer from CAIS/PAIS/MAIS. So there is no question that they are biologically male.

What scientific facts do you think are being ignored? The scientific fact is that they are biologically male. Anything else is irrelevant.

Yes, that's reminded me that T has a function of stopping growth during puberty, another part of the mix.

My point isn't to advocate for or against CAIS inclusion, but to point out that sporting regulators and msm don't talk about it in terms of the science (like the conversation we're having). They talk about women with naturally high T (no such thing!), or a test (unspecified) that's been failed. Instead of saying 'this individual is genetically male'.

It's really difficult. There used to be a poster on here with CAIS. I think most people don't get diagnosed until their periods don't start. So they've been brought up female and believe themselves to be female until then, plus have feminised bodies.

It does seem unreasonably intrusive to me to put that personal information into the public domain.

It is for the average person. But sport is about fair competition.