Should there be a DSD category at the Paralympics?

[GerbilsAllTheWayDown]

I think it would be a great idea to have a DSD category, but I lack the knowledge to really assess whether it would be a good idea and what the merits and pitfalls might be. What do the wise women of FWR think?

@DSDaisy What vitriol are you accusing me of?

My frustration is at the corruption at the heart of elite sports where scouts pick young men with a very rare condition to compete against women. It's a thoroughly reasonable position, you know, to not like cheating. Perhaps stop being so defensive

Sorry to post and run! Busy day and thought I'd post when I had a five minute breather.

As to "why" (perfectly valid question!). I was thinking that the 5-ARD might prevent men from ever being able to attain full male strength, or (having just listened to a chapter of the Carole Hooven "Testosterone" audiobook about DSDs), people with CAIS who have XY chromosomes but lack receptors for testosterone so appear female in all aspects and are often raised female (since it's common to only find out once the child hits puberty). Even if you inject artificial testosterone in a person who has CAIS, they won't masculinise. Women without DSDs naturally produce some testosterone and therefore I guess have more propensity towards building strength compared to someone who has CAIS, therefore someone with CAIS would have a diminished athletic potential.

Although as others pointed out, there are a myriad of genetic mutations that give advantages or disadvantages here and there which aren't covered by the Paralympics.

FWIW I'm against 5-ARD males competing against women before people accuse me of anything!

I'm also completely fine calling those who have CAIS women in a social context, given what I know about CAiS from the limited reading I've done (although recognise they are genetically male we're talking science).

I think those with CAIS will probably end up with their own events, yes. Because ultimately they have an average height advantage and I expect other physical advantages. Plus they don’t have menstrual cycles to deal with.

It has been reported that in the 00’s Ekkhart arbeit scouted in particular regions on South Africa known to have clusters of male athletes with particular DSDs. Semenya was one athlete that benefitted from this.

Arbeit has a background sullied by doping female athletes. He is a testosterone in sport expert.

Athletes with CAIS are over represented in female sports in the Olympics compared to in general population.

Their height advantage on average, is meaningful at that level.

It may come to it that sex testing with cheek swabs will be again standard for all those seeking eligibility into female sports. Because if a male person, even one with a slight advantage cannot respect the regulations or doesn’t know they are not female, this needs to be re-introduced. I believe that before it was phased out, female athletes were asked if they objected to the sex testing and the majority wanted to keep it. It was still removed as a requirement despite the wishes of female athletes at the time.

I believe they were scouting 5ARD male athletes. Semenya apparently comes from a region known to be a cluster region for patients with 5ARD DSDs.

There are options for people who know they have a DSD that means they are not female though and are likely to have some advantage, even if it is small. They can compete in mixed sex sports.

At what point does society have to accommodate people playing in protected categories that they do not qualify for? And at what point do those who know they don’t qualify, for whatever reason, have to respect that they don’t qualify and accept that?

Everyone plays to their strengths

And what is the relevance of that?

Either way, reports from people who knew Semenya say that it was known.

Semenya published photos as a teen posing shirtless swimming if I remember correctly. Swimming with other male people. Do you believe that as a young teen that Semenya do that believing they were a girl?

So, you may be right or you may be wrong. Semenya knew definitively after testing and still chose to compete.

Nope.

But if they are playing sport from a certain age and they need to be verified to be eligible to compete, then yes, they should be tested like every other female athlete.

You can cry all you want.

Do you or don’t you believe female athletes deserve to have a category that is protected for safety and fairness?

Sure.

And your point is?

I also didn’t say they were looking for ‘men’.

They knew exactly who to target and where to find them and what to look for. I don’t think anyone will deny it. You can call them female athletes, but they were looking for those who are male with particular DSDs.

I could cry for all the females sat at home on the sofa whilst a male, trans identified or dsd affected, takes her spot at the Olympics.

I'd suggest, by the numbers known currently, that that statistic is more than 1 in 40,000. There's at least 2 individuals in the boxing.

But they're just women, so don't matter that much.

Edited for spelling

And if the future studies show that even the small advantage that these male athletes have is quantifiable and is an advantage, then what? You will campaign that female athletes just have to accept this advantage?

Because you don’t believe that someone knowing that they don’t qualify for a protected category yet continuing to compete should take responsibility for their decisions? And if sex testing is brought back, they will know and will have to make that choice.

But you advocate that women just suck it up? And it is known that CAIS athletes are over represented in the female category in the Olympics. But those female people who lose their opportunities should just accept this? Is that what you believe?

ww.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.18Of 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.

That rate is significantly higher than the general population. As I said, it is a significant over representation to be denying that there is advantage.

Please show the evidence that advantage is a myth based on conflated information.