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.

My grandma thought you had to get pregnant via the belly button. It was a shock when she was told otherwise after her wedding.

Because specific DSDs have their own collective categories and needs based on those categories.

@Hellofabore
Often, it's not a clear-cut as that - eg a mutation in an enzyme may partially affect its functioning (to varying degrees) or may completely knock out function. So even when you're looking at mutations in a single enzyme, phenotypes can vary.
And rarely there is no suitable category anyway, such is the unique nature of the DSD.

This. It doesn't matter if a male has no biological advantage over a female, if they are biologically male then they shouldn't be in the female category - even if they have a DSD that means they have a more female looking body.

What part of having testes is part of having the potential to menstruate?

May be possible in exceptionally rare cases, though the organs will not appear or function normally. That is the nature of genetic mutation.

Which is my point. It's not as clearcut - with distinct categories- as you seem to imagine.

@FiveFoxes but it's not even as simple as saying only XX in women's sports categories... you can get a man with XX chromosomes (de la chapel syndrome) who would develop like a boy/man, male external genitalia, develop male body hair etc... but could in theory ID as a woman and compete.

For some DSD saying it's as simple as 'just' chromosomes/ karotype/ genitals & reproductive tract alone aren't going to give us the categories of men / women we want for fair sport.

How does a person with testes and without any ovaries menstruate?

If the body parts are not present, this is an impossibility. You are claiming a complexity by utilising other differences of sexual development to support your position surely.

Please tell us how a male diagnosed with CAIS menstruates? They have testes and no ovaries. How do they ever have the potential to menstruate? Please back up your claims with evidence.

Will BBC do some investigative journalism as to how much money the American sponsors paid to ensure this happened?

And who specifically is pulling the strings?

Almost certainly not.
Given their ongoing dereliction of their duty and yet another paedophile scandal that they tried to cover up - again, SURELY now, either Tim Davie is axed and/or the whole sorry institution is defunded

And given the IOC spokesman is Starmers mate its like pigs at the trough.

I'm not talking about CAIS in particular, no.

There are many DSDs.

Very rarely, someone can be XX (or X) in some parts of the body and XY in other parts. Obviously, I'm not talking about fully functioning male and female anatomy occuring side by side, but there can be vestigal/atrophied/partially functioning organs of both sexes present in one human body on very rare occasions. Menstruation has been reported in the scientific literature in at least one of these instances to my knowledge.

People with CAIS usually don't have internal female anatomy, but in some extremely rare cases it is possible to have some degree of ovary/uterus/fallopian tube like structures with CAIS. I don't think menstruation has ever been reported in this situation.

@Helleofabore
eg
www.frontiersin.org/journals/pediatrics/articles/10.3389/fped.2024.1400319/full

For example, females with a DSD known as androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes; they produce testosterone; but their bodies aren’t equipped to process it. So they don’t get any of the benefits from that testosterone, like males do.

Article pretending to clarify situation actually seeks to confuse the reader and muddy the waters.

Exactly. Females with AIS are not affected because the other X chromosome compensates.

I don't think menstruation has ever been reported in this situation.

@Helleofabore
Actually, I didn't read closely enough, sorry. One of the CAIS cases the linked article reviewed did have cyclical vaginal bloody spotting at least.

Well you see, one super easy way to get laudits for "equal gender representation" while still giving men the advantage is to allow self-ID.

It really could be very simple.

XX people compete in the womens category.
Everyone else competes in open category.

Everyone gets a chance at competing. Not fair on those with dsds? Maybe give them their own category, or maybe tell them to train harder, longer, better like the XX women are being told to do right now.

I am on my phone at the moment and cannot check this until tonight.

Does the person in question have ovaries at all?

I wonder if we'll see an athlete with de la Chapelle syndrome next.

Actually, don’t worry. My point still stands. If via further research those athletes currently included due to not establishing advantage are found to have advantage, they too should be excluded. At the moment they are included and that is all we need to know.

For some DSD saying it's as simple as 'just' chromosomes/ karotype/ genitals & reproductive tract alone aren't going to give us the categories of men / women we want for fair sport.

Yes, this is exactly my position too @AltitudeCheck and I think it works both ways (both for XX and XY as well as other combinations).
DSDs are often very complex and in many cases assessment will need to be taken on a case by case basis to ensure fairness to all.

I misread this to begin with and was about to go "but there was that fencer who was competing at 7 months pregnant..." but then I read it again - doh!

Let’s not forget, nobody is banned from competing. It’s so often framed that these type of men are banned, they are not, they can compete in the men’s, but like cheat Lia Thomas, Emily Bridges or Caster S, they want to compete in the women’s events as they gave make advantage. Those men have zero interest in competing in the men’s, because they are mediocre sports men.

Journalists at least seem to be trying to explain DSDs now (even though some of them are doing so quite badly). Did this happen after the Rio 2016 women's athletics debacle? Was there the same level of discussion about in on social media? I'm wondering if things are changing now.

Also, I want to highlight this fantastic letter from Susan Smith in the National Scot https://www.thenational.scot/community/24503836.clear-facts-discussing-olympic-boxing-controversy/

It's a rebuttal to an article by Ellie Gomersall, which was full of misinformation.

My recollection is that at the time the story was that Semenya was a female with high testosterone, being treated unfairly. At the time I don't think it was known that Semenya had an XY DSD—I don't think that was known until the court case, at which point it was not newsworthy, apparently. I don't recall any discussion or notice that the three finalists were all male and if there would have been I think it would have centered on them all being females with high testosterone.

I don't think it's fair to lump dsd and trans athetes together. The former were socialized as women. It must be very difficult for them.

To be clear, I don't think anybody - dsd or otherwise -should be competing in the female category if they have male advantage. That doesn't mean we can't acknowledge how difficult dsds must be to reconcile psychologically.

I think what's happened to the two boxers is very unfair - it shouldn't have played out like this on such a public stage. Also terribly unfair to their opponents at the same time. As well as dangerous. Nobody should be boxing against women if they have male advantage but this whole situation is awful. Terribly badly organised.