Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Should there be a DSD category at the Paralympics?

168 replies

GerbilsAllTheWayDown · 31/07/2024 14:26

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?

OP posts:
NewGreenDuck · 31/07/2024 19:32

And my point was that once 1 group are allowed in then the argument that others should be banned is diminished.

TheBanffie · 31/07/2024 19:32

People who are XY with androgen insensitivity or disorders of androgen production shouldn't be in the female category but will be disadvantaged against men with normal sex hormone functioning - so they don't really have somewhere to compete just now. Whether that justifies another category is challenging - is the paralympics just for people with disability? Is a DSD automatically a disability? Most men with Klinefelter's never get diagnosed as they don't have any problems due to it (although many are infertile).

Helleofabore · 31/07/2024 19:37

There are many people in the world who cannot compete due to a medical condition. One that may be hidden. One that may mean also that they have to stop because their medication is deemed as performance enhancing.

This group of people, if found to have advantage over the people in a protected category, should have options to compete like everyone else does, but they should not be allowed to compete in that protected category (that the group, how ever small and tiny, have been found to have advantage over).

TempestTost · 31/07/2024 19:49

This reply has been deleted

Withdrawn at poster's request

This makes no sense, nor do your other claims about people refusing testing.

If someone really has no idea they have a DSD, they need to find out, it's a serious health issue. Yes, it might be hard but that is life. It really doesn't have anything directly to do with sports.

5 ARD isn't going to run into this anyway, those kids will become aware at puberty that there is an issue. Most young people with CAIS will too. They will not have to be involved in testing for sports. Why would they be going for sex testing? If you are suggesting they don't look into their health issues that is terrible medical advice.

If someone doesn't want to submit to the extensive testing involved with elite sports, mainly for drugs really, they certainly don't have to. Just like if they don't want to do the other things required for that kind of performance.

People who find out something unexpected medically through sports testing are under no obligation to tell anyone what it is. They have an undisclosed medical issue, end of. It could be anything.

TempestTost · 31/07/2024 20:01

And just a note about paralympic categories. No one makes them up and then rounds up a bunch of people to compete in them.

they come to exist because there are athletes who would not otherwise be able to compete who want to.

If a bunch of people with CAIS were wanting to compete but couldn't, they could do the work to get such sports categories created. (It can be a lot of work, and you'd need enough interested athletes.)

If none of the young people would be interested, then there really is no issue, it will never happen.

Helleofabore · 31/07/2024 20:42

It should also be noted that there is a completely different discussion to be had about whether a person with CAIS should be treated differently in any other situation. This thread’s discussion is only about sport.

CocoapuffPuff · 31/07/2024 20:54

It only matters when it actually matters. I'd say competitive sport is one of those times.

whinginglittlefucker · 31/07/2024 21:09

@DSDaisy I agree with you. The attitude here to women with DSD is horrible, punitive, hateful; there is no other medical condition where people are so excoriated and blamed and accused of being bad faith actors (other threads) No wonder people with DSDs find acceptance in the alphabet soup community. I would make an exception for contact sports where XY women could hurt other competitors in women's category, but in other categories people with DSDs born and raised as girls are welcome in my view.

NotBadConsidering · 31/07/2024 21:35

XY women

There is no such thing. The attitude is negative towards men who shouldn’t be in the women’s sport category.

NotBadConsidering · 31/07/2024 21:38

5 ARD isn't going to run into this anyway, those kids will become aware at puberty that there is an issue. Most young people with CAIS will too. They will not have to be involved in testing for sports. Why would they be going for sex testing? If you are suggesting they don't look into their health issues that is terrible medical advice.

Yes, isn’t it strange that no one, including Semenya himself, wondered why he had never had a period and investigated the reason why prior to him becoming a top level women’s athlete? What could possibly have led to such a medical oversight I wonder?🤨

DuesToTheDirt · 31/07/2024 21:43

This reply has been deleted

Withdrawn at poster's request

Ah yes, a "tiny" group of people who despite being so "tiny" took the three top spots in a women's race. (800m at the 2016 Rio Olympics). Potential harm? Let's think of the actual harm to the actual women who were denied medals. Using "emotional reasoning" to decide sporting categories is absurd.

Helleofabore · 31/07/2024 21:44

whinginglittlefucker · 31/07/2024 21:09

@DSDaisy I agree with you. The attitude here to women with DSD is horrible, punitive, hateful; there is no other medical condition where people are so excoriated and blamed and accused of being bad faith actors (other threads) No wonder people with DSDs find acceptance in the alphabet soup community. I would make an exception for contact sports where XY women could hurt other competitors in women's category, but in other categories people with DSDs born and raised as girls are welcome in my view.

And how wonderful that you can express your view without being regarded as hateful, and being horrible and punitive. Even though your own opinion has already been proven to harm women such as in Rio 2016 when three male people with Differences of sex development took all three podium places.

But excoriate away. It doesn’t change the facts that at the moment there is only one DSD that has not yet been shown to have an advantage compared to the general female athlete population and this needs careful consideration and study over time. The others involve male athletes having some degree of male puberty that is acknowledged to have advantages. So, emotional pleas and shaming attempts aside, the facts should be able to be discussed without accusations of such discussions being considered hateful.

GnomeDePlume · 01/08/2024 07:48

When I watch women's elite sports I want to watch the best XX women.

I don't want to watch who has the best pharmacist or who found a loophole to climb through.

If someone has XY chromosomes they should compete with men. If they aren't good enough then they can join me on the sofa, watching.

Women's elite sports should be for women (XX chromasomes). It should not be a 'cant/won't cut it with the men' category.

WickedSerious · 01/08/2024 07:55

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Helleofabore · 01/08/2024 08:08

This reply has been deleted

Withdrawn at poster's request

I was thinking about this overnight and this attitude really highlighted the issue at hand for me.

The emotional response only ever goes one way with positions such as this post highlights. Not once was there any consideration given to the female athlete who missed out knowing (then or finding out in the future) that they missed out because the competitor had an unfair advantage but that they, the athlete who lost out, was considered acceptable collateral to maintain someone else’s happiness.

And I am only talking about if advantage was found in the future. Because more about these differences in sex development are discovered every year. Including, I would hope, methods to treat the negative health impacts of these medical conditions to enable these people to be able to live healthy lives.

We have learned so much about inclusion in sport over the past two decades since sex testing was dropped because campaign groups used this same emotional reasoning, just as we saw on this thread, to allow the wider group of males with specific DSDs to compete with female people. I remember reading the reports and the articles those campaign groups used and it was always emotional response supporting the male athlete.

I now consider such reasoning as misogynistic. Because the emotional needs of the female athlete who has been told by those who support inclusion, even if there is a proven advantage, that they are acceptable collateral has been disregarded.

The female athlete has been considered not important by all those who use the argument based on emotions rather than science and material reality.

note: I quoted the wrong quote but cannot change that. It kind of works anyway though.

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 01/08/2024 08:14

’I have been with a girl with CAIS just this afternoon & the views here make me very scared for her future’

Why? Are you honestly saying that if someone can’t compete (and win) in an elite sport at international,level, it is going to blight their future?

Because that’s the outlook for 99.999% of everyone, male, female, or ‘would prefer not to say’.

RedToothBrush · 01/08/2024 08:18

Why can't they just train harder and compete with the men?

That's what women get told.

More seriously, in theory it's effectively a disability. These are men with a developmental disorder. They are not women and competing with women destroys fairness.

So if they were going to create a separate category then it would be more applicable to do this as part of the Paralympics rather than Olympics.

I'm not sure how that would go down - it would be seen as being derogatory by those it affected. Which in itself is prejudiced to Paralympians.

The argument then comes about merging the Olympics and Paralympics. I don't think this will happen any time soon, if for no other reason other than keeping the events separate is better for sponsorship.

I think there are questions here about sexism and prejudice to the disabled by the DSD community...

CocoapuffPuff · 01/08/2024 08:22

Agreed. Women are supposed to park their ambition, dreams, fears, wishes, preferences, choices, for anyone who wants our spot.

Cry? I could tear a mountain down with my bare teeth in fury at the unfairness of it all.

RedToothBrush · 01/08/2024 08:30

whinginglittlefucker · 31/07/2024 21:09

@DSDaisy I agree with you. The attitude here to women with DSD is horrible, punitive, hateful; there is no other medical condition where people are so excoriated and blamed and accused of being bad faith actors (other threads) No wonder people with DSDs find acceptance in the alphabet soup community. I would make an exception for contact sports where XY women could hurt other competitors in women's category, but in other categories people with DSDs born and raised as girls are welcome in my view.

I'm sorry, but the sexism jumps out.

At no point is thought given to the impact on all the females. If you have been raised as a female but are physically actually male with a developmental disorder, that makes you... A male. It's not for women to uphold fantasies or delusions. It's undoubtedly a difficult thing to go through but it doesn't change reality. The process should be counselling and support, not validation and shitting all over women.

The prejudice about admitting this is a development disorder or disability is also telling. Anything but admitting this is a medical issue which means you have psychical issues.

We should be supportive and not prejudice about this. This doesn't mean telling women to budge up and put up though.

Having a DSD category at the Paras would make sense. But this won't happen because this is about status and power.

If you aren't 'a real man', the next best status is being a woman and both are above being turned in someway as a "substandard human' and admitting it's a developmental disorder. It's a male attitude to subordinate women and to avoid being associated with disability. It's not very nice. It's internalised disablism. Similar to internalised homophobia which we know is an issue.

What's wrong with admitting who you are? I'm sorry but fairness in sport is what should be at the heart of sport. Not validation.

Snowypeaks · 01/08/2024 08:51

RedToothBrush · 01/08/2024 08:30

I'm sorry, but the sexism jumps out.

At no point is thought given to the impact on all the females. If you have been raised as a female but are physically actually male with a developmental disorder, that makes you... A male. It's not for women to uphold fantasies or delusions. It's undoubtedly a difficult thing to go through but it doesn't change reality. The process should be counselling and support, not validation and shitting all over women.

The prejudice about admitting this is a development disorder or disability is also telling. Anything but admitting this is a medical issue which means you have psychical issues.

We should be supportive and not prejudice about this. This doesn't mean telling women to budge up and put up though.

Having a DSD category at the Paras would make sense. But this won't happen because this is about status and power.

If you aren't 'a real man', the next best status is being a woman and both are above being turned in someway as a "substandard human' and admitting it's a developmental disorder. It's a male attitude to subordinate women and to avoid being associated with disability. It's not very nice. It's internalised disablism. Similar to internalised homophobia which we know is an issue.

What's wrong with admitting who you are? I'm sorry but fairness in sport is what should be at the heart of sport. Not validation.

I hadn't thought about the disablism, but you make an excellent point.

Helleofabore · 01/08/2024 09:34

red does bring up good points, as usual.

The reality is though, is that there are many medical conditions that mean a person is excluded from
another athlete’s protected category. Bluntly put, it is irrelevant what that athlete believes themselves to be, if their physical reality does not fit in that category and is explicitly excluded because it has been proven to have advantage, that leaves them in the same situation as all those other athletes that are excluded.

And again, we are discussing sport here. Nothing else. No one other than those who regulate the acceptance into a category need to know. This horrific situation where there is speculation is directly because the regulations are inconsistent and unfair.

And why are the regulations around sports and male athletes with DSDs inconsistent and unfair? Because a group in the 90s pressured the IOC using the exact same arguments we saw on this thread yesterday.

Emotional arguments based solely on philosophical principles around inclusion that purely centred the people the group wished to include! Not considering the female athletes needs at all.

Sexist, misogynistic, however we label this, this is what happened. And yet, people pointing this out are demonised. On a feminist board.

RedToothBrush · 01/08/2024 09:50

Imagine a blind man demanded to be in the womens category because they couldn't compete in the mens because they weren't good enough.

We'd think it was nuts.

Why is this different?

NotBadConsidering · 01/08/2024 09:56

Or instead of the term “XY women” 🙄 we had “well seeing blind people” who could enter the blind categories at the Paralympics.

UpThePankhurst · 01/08/2024 09:58

Helleofabore · 01/08/2024 08:08

I was thinking about this overnight and this attitude really highlighted the issue at hand for me.

The emotional response only ever goes one way with positions such as this post highlights. Not once was there any consideration given to the female athlete who missed out knowing (then or finding out in the future) that they missed out because the competitor had an unfair advantage but that they, the athlete who lost out, was considered acceptable collateral to maintain someone else’s happiness.

And I am only talking about if advantage was found in the future. Because more about these differences in sex development are discovered every year. Including, I would hope, methods to treat the negative health impacts of these medical conditions to enable these people to be able to live healthy lives.

We have learned so much about inclusion in sport over the past two decades since sex testing was dropped because campaign groups used this same emotional reasoning, just as we saw on this thread, to allow the wider group of males with specific DSDs to compete with female people. I remember reading the reports and the articles those campaign groups used and it was always emotional response supporting the male athlete.

I now consider such reasoning as misogynistic. Because the emotional needs of the female athlete who has been told by those who support inclusion, even if there is a proven advantage, that they are acceptable collateral has been disregarded.

The female athlete has been considered not important by all those who use the argument based on emotions rather than science and material reality.

note: I quoted the wrong quote but cannot change that. It kind of works anyway though.

Edited

One of several absolutely cracking posts. Absolutely agree.

UtopiaPlanitia · 01/08/2024 19:31

Twitter post from Carole Hooven today:

https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1819041282594873759

Seems like a good time to re-post my older (now edited) post about athletes with XY DSDs (Disorder, or Difference of Sex Development). Lots of graphs and detail about the relevant biology at the end.

* * *

First: People living with DSDs should be treated with compassion and understanding, and receive any heath care they need. These can be challenging conditions for individuals and their families. But when male athletes have DSDs that give them an advantage over females, and they compete in the female category, this raises concerns about safety and fairness, and forces discussion of the relevant physical traits.

Athletes with XY DSDs who have testes (usually internal), XY sex chromosomes, male-typical levels of testosterone, and functional androgen receptors are often described as females with "hyperandrogenism," i.e., abnormally high levels of testosterone. They experience physical benefits of this high testosterone during puberty, which translate into athletic advantages over females. The issue for sports is that athletes with the XY DSD 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), may be socialized as female, may be legally female, and may live and identify as female; but they are male.

These individuals are usually born with female-appearing genitalia, which can lead to being sexed as female. Here's why. 5-ARD is caused by a mutation in the gene that codes for the enzyme 5-alpha reductase, which converts testosterone into a more potent androgen, DHT. This androgen interacts with the androgen receptor, like testosterone, and is necessary for the typical development of male external genitalia (penis and scrotum) and the prostate. Without DHT, female-typical external genitalia develop. At the end of this monster post is a graphic of the relevant steroid production pathway, from my book T: The story of Testosterone.

DHT is also responsible for male-pattern baldness and dark, coarse facial hair, which is why people with the condition have smooth skin that can give a feminine appearance.

The “decision makers” are aware that athletes with 5-ARD are male, and that they experience the benefits of male puberty. The requirement to reduce their testosterone to typical female levels isn’t discriminatory, since these are males who are asking to compete in the female category. But more significantly, all the relevant scientific evidence shows that reducing male T in adulthood does not undo the physical benefits of male puberty.

Here's more detail about T, DHT, and male advantage in strength and speed. I've been asked if men with the DSD 5-ARD (in which ppl cannot convert testosterone into the more potent androgen DHT) experience the typical benefits of male puberty, that would give them an advantage in strength and speed relative to women. This is relevant to questions about whether male athletes with 5-ARD should be allowed to compete in the female category. This is an excellent question, because it could be the case that DHT is necessary for the development and maintenance of male-typical muscle, lean body mass and strength. If that were the case, then people with 5-ARD might not have a typical male advantage, because the lack of DHT would perhaps lead to a more feminine pattern of fat, lean body mass and strength. I've wondered about this myself and have looked into the evidence.

Perhaps the top researcher in this area, Shalendar Bhasin, who is scrupulous in his methods, has examined this very question. The answer appears to be: no, testosterone does not need to be converted to DHT to exert its typical anabolic effects. These findings are reported in his 2012 study, "Effect of Testosterone Supplementation With and Without a Dual 5α-Reductase Inhibitor on Fat-Free Mass in Men With Suppressed Testosterone Production, A Randomized Controlled Trial." (It is linked to below—and since it's paywalled, I've included the graphs that show comparisons between the placebo and DHT— inhibited conditions, with no difference on the various outcomes.)

For more detail, the investigators wanted to examine the effects of suppressing DHT on muscle mass, strength, and sexual function. This important because one of the treatments for benign prostatic hyperplasia and male-pattern baldness is to suppress DHT, but clinicians have been concerned about effects on other outcomes that affect health and quality of life. Participants (healthy men, 18 to 50, with normal T levels) had their T blocked, and were given graded doses of T, along with either placebo or a drug that blocked the conversion of T to DHT. So both groups had T, but only one, the placebo group, also had DHT. After 20 weeks of treatment, changes in lean body mass, muscle, and strength were assessed. There were no significant difference between the placebo and DHT-blocked groups in these outcomes.

For LOTS more detail, here's the relevant text from the results. Please don't ask me questions about the study. Just look at the abstract and results which you can find by Googling. The main point is that while there are predicted effects of the different doses of T received, there were no differences in the outcomes according to whether they had DHT blocked (with dutasteride) or not (placebo). "Fat-Free Mass Fat-free mass and lean body mass increased in a dose-dependent manner in the placebo and dutasteride [THIS IS THE DRUG THAT BLOCKS CONVERSION OF T TO DHT] groups (Figure 2).

The changes in fat-free mass were related to testosterone dose and changes in testosterone concentrations in the placebo and dutasteride groups but did not differ between groups; the dose-adjusted mean difference (placebo minus dutasteride) in fat-free mass was 0.50 kg (95% CI, −0.22 to 1.22 kg; P = .18). There was no significant interaction between testosterone dose and randomization to dutasteride or placebo, indicating a lack of evidence that the relationship of testosterone dose to change in fat-free mass differed between the dutasteride and placebo groups.

The model-based smoothed regression lines, obtained by generalized additive models, describing the relationship between changes in testosterone concentrations and changes in fat-free mass and lean body mass were similar in the placebo and dutasteride groups. Changes in fat mass were negatively related to testosterone dose and concentrations, but the relationship between change in fat mass and dose did not differ significantly between the placebo and dutasteride groups (P = .41; Figure 2)." "Muscle strength Leg-press and chest-press strength increased dependently by dose in the placebo and dutasteride groups. Increases in leg-press and chest-press strength were greater with larger doses and higher concentrations of testosterone. These relationships did not differ between the placebo and dutasteride groups (Figure 2)."

Really interesting commentary from the authors on the role of DHT in adult men: "Why then did the steroid 5α-reductase system evolve for androgens? Forty-six XY males with steroid 5α-reductase deficiency exhibited ambiguous or female external genitalia at birth and poor prostate development, but underwent normal muscle and bone development during pubertal transition. The phenotype of these patients suggests that steroid 5α-reductase plays an essential role in the development of prostate and phallus by providing local amplification of an androgenic signal without systemic hyperandrogenemia during critical periods of sexual differentiation, illustrating nature's extraordinary ingenuity in creating mechanisms for tissue-selective amplification during development.

We speculate that in adult men, in whom this tissue-specific amplification is not essential because the circulating testosterone concentrations are substantially higher than those in the fetus, testosterone and DHT can interchangeably subserve many androgenic functions. When circulating testosterone concentrations are low, intraprostatic DHT formation may become important in maintaining prostate growth, thus buffering the effects of decreasing testosterone levels, which has been suggested by Marks et al.

Our data are consistent with studies that have reported no effects of 5α-reductase inhibitors on muscle or bone mass. Inferences from these trials are limited by the fact that administration of 5α-reductase inhibitors increases testosterone levels, rendering it difficult to ascribe the outcomes to differences in DHT levels alone. In our trial, inhibition of endogenous testosterone by administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist eliminated this problem. Additionally, the high-dose dutasteride regimen effectively inhibited both steroid 5α-reductase isoenzymes."

Swipe left for the next trending thread