BBC finally acknowledges something may be amiss in Olympics women's boxing

[Janie143]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crlr8gp813ko Good quotes from Dr Hilton.

Maybe the author just wanted to throw in a bit of irrelevant mansplaining to counter Emma Hilton's clear statement. So BBC readers can enjoy the typical Terf Twitter experience without having to log on to X.

I think this is a vast over statement? 1 in 300? Is this the number you get when you include women with PCOS ? Surely DSDs are far less common?

"He says that XY chromosomes in females are very rare - in Denmark it’s about one in 15,000.

But he believes that when adding these many genetic conditions together, about one in 300 people are affected."

When we add in some different things we get a bigger number.

Lots of wiffle waffle about sex not being so clear cut, and that XY doesn't always mean male.......and it is referred to as an "in depth look".

Despite reading various MN threads about different DSDs, I really don't understand why it's not as simple as the women's category= XX.

There will be a variety of people who are not pure XX and therefore cannot compete in the women's category anymore, and they might feel that is unfair, but the line has to be drawn somewhere and be very clear, otherwise there's no point in having two categories.

Yes so much obfustucation in the article. Odd that they didn't use an infographic which would have clarified, but rather went for the sea of text approach.

Presence or absence of a uterus isn't diagnostic as both male and female DSDs have this - presence or absence of ovaries or testicles on the other hand...

Size of penis/clitoris also not diagnostic, although it can indicate something going on (virilised xx - probably doping or CAH in either case the athlete will definitely already be aware, virilised xy - probably 5-ARD or PAIS).

Anyway,

"Blind them with non science", I think it's called.

Exactly. XY should exclude and after that the onus should be on the athlete and their team to provide a diagnosis that shows no competitive advantage.

It could fall under similar rules as therapeutic exemptions for drugs. Testosterone can currently be taken by transmen in male competition because they take it therapeutically. Men can't (unless they also have a condition). Transmen can't take therapeutic T in female competition.

Surely the answer is that no one with xy chromosomes (simple cheek swab) can enter female categories unless they optionally choose to undergo additional testing to prove that they are intensive to testosterone.

I would bet the number wishing to do the additional tests by will be zero since they do actually know they have a male advantage.

Plus the likelihood of an xy individual with DSD and insensitive to testosterone who also happens to be a world class athlete is infinitesimally small.

“Plus the likelihood of an xy individual with DSD and insensitive to testosterone who also happens to be a world class athlete is infinitesimally small.”

I don’t have the link to hand but other threads on here have quoted stats that suggest such individuals may in fact be over-represented in women’s elite sports competitions.

Actually individuals with CAIS are XY and totally insensitive to testosterone and look entirely female externally. They are relatively overrepresented in women's sport, maybe because they tend to be tall and they don't have periods or pregnancy.

My DD was suspected of having this as a teenager, although she was found to be XX after investigation, s

Sorry posted too soon. I personally would allow people with XY who have not had the advantages of a male puberty ( CAIS and Swyer) to compete in the women's category but I understand

I would be open to hearing arguments on both side for this very small category.
I find it hard to believe that there are no other differences of strength speed biomechanics etc

The boxing has just been discussed on Woman’s Hour. Hopefully this means the BBC have finally realised that they can’t completely ignore this stuff. Although it seems they’re still happy to churn out guff about it!

No. I believe those with CAIS are likely to be taller than average for example.

Ah have just read your earlier post talking about height.

It is obfuscation. It would have been a much better target arficle
without the side story about the infertility story.

Did you even bother to read the entire quote that you were responding to? Or even the the very first sentence?

Exactly it's not like any athletes are competing for a gold medal in Pregnancy.

It was an interesting listen, and is the first thing on today's episode: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0021qwk

"Maybe the author just wanted to throw in a bit of irrelevant mansplaining to counter Emma Hilton's clear statement. So BBC readers can enjoy the typical Terf Twitter experience without having to log on to X."
⬆️⬆️ This. Without Dr H's contribution the article would be total guff. Maybe the BBC has partially read the room but really a science correspondent instead of a G&I one should have been given that task. Since it relates to that pesky science.

Read the second line this woman was diagnosed with XY chromosomes. This person was biologically male, and because of that had no womb. It's sad because she was raised as female but if a female doesn't menstruate they should go to GP for investigation.

I can't agree that the article is "excellent". It is scientifically wishy-washy - for example, it states that "These people [people with XY chromosomes and the SRY gene] usually have testicles which are often inside the body." It is actually extremely rare for testicles to be inside the body. She presumably means people with 5ARD, an enzyme deficiency.

The article also jumps about all over the place, never really gets to grips with what makes someone male or female, and quotes experts without establishing their credentials. It's a great example of someone having picked up a lot of facts, but being unable to present them as a coherent whole because the framework of real understanding is missing. She may get there yet, but at the moment her thinking is too jumbled to be very helpful to people who also lack a clear understanding of the issues.

I agree with this. A simple swab from inside of cheek for XY/XX test so not invasive or embarrassing. It should be done at grass roots level of competition so sorted out quicker and doesn't get to Olympic level to find out.

I suspect if we reinstated the cheek swab for sex testing, the side issue of enormously rare DSDs (which could be further tested for) would almost entirely disappear.