So much disinformation and general bollocks! Frustration with responses to the IOC announcement

[auserna]

Predictably, so much bullshit being spouted following this (very well handled, I thought) announcement from the IOC.

Prof Alun Williams (Professor of Sport and Exercise Genomics, Manchester Metropolitan University) talks about people being "coerced" into taking the genetic test. It's no more a coercion than the process of applying for a passport if you want to travel abroad; there's no force or intimidation implemented by the IOC.

He says that there is no need to test trans people as you can just ask them, or their family and friends, what their sex is. Yeah, because trans people are well known for being straightforward and honest about their "biological" sex and for not putting pressure on their friends and family to affirm their delusions.

He says, “What’s certainly true is that genetic testing like this was tried and then abandoned in the 1990s because of all the inherent problems with validity, practicality and ethics." Because obviously genetic testing hasn't advanced at all since the 1990s.

Meanwhile interACT (an advocacy organisation for young people who have DSDs) claims that, "Doctors and scientists agree that biological sex characteristics exist on a spectrum," (what, all of them? Really?) and that, "Experts [who remained nameless] have spoken out about how “sex testing” is unscientific."

They also claim that, "The policy makes a few rare exceptions for some intersex athletes with specific variations (using the stigmatizing term “DSD”*), but restricts many more intersex athletes from competition," when the actual wording from the IOC policy says, "XY-DSD athletes with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) (defined in Schedule 1) and other rare XY DSDs that do not benefit from the anabolic and/or performance-enhancing effects of testosterone should, on that basis, be included in the Female Category," thus including any necessary intersex conditions and demonstrating that this has clearly been thought through carefully.

Also on their site are testimonials showing how a poor intersex child was no longer allowed to swim for their team because they wore a different type of costume - until it's revealed that the child in question is also trans which is entirely different to having a DSD.

*The term "DSD" is only "stigmatizing" is you don't believe their are male and female DSDs and think people with these conditions live in a speshul in-between world (as, unfortunately, plenty of people with these conditions seem to if they've been captured by this ideology). If you haven't bought into this bullshit then DSD - Disorder of Sexual Development - simply describes the condition (or rather the range of conditions).

"How can sex be binary if some people have XXY chromosomes?" they cry, glowing smugly with their own cleverness, totally ignoring the fact that human beings are organic and sometimes there are mutations/anomalies.

Not to mention the continued taunts of, "Oh, you clearly don't understand biology!" if you don't happen to believe that men can magically become women. It's just exhausting.

A second video

The IOC Policy, like those of other sports, says "No males in women's sport". But they make an exception - a condition called CAIS. This creates potential confusion, and even the possibility of a loophole that sports must be aware of to defend the integrity of women's sport. In this video, Ross explains how the SRY-screen would work, and how the test for advantage has to be held to a very high, rigorous and transparent standard, with a transparent technical document. He implores sports leaders to get this right, for the sake of the overall concept.

Well, the bloke who invented the SRY gene test says it isn’t fit for purpose.

However, he lives in Victoria which is a thoroughly captured state and it seems he considers a female to be “a not fully functioning male”. And the ABC will earn more ACON (our Stonewall) points for publishing this view.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-31/scientist-says-ioc-shouldnt-use-sry-test-transgender-athletes/106514954

I don’t think his opinion of his own work is to be trusted.

There definitely should be support and counselling for these athletes. It's unlikely to be public information though, unlike the current attention on trans or DSD athletes - all potential competitors in the female category would hopefully do the test well in advance. If it's done at an earlier age they are less likely to be too much in the public eye. Athletes often have injuries or quit for a range of reasons, so pulling out of competitions need not 'out' them. And hopefully there could be a more mature and compassionate approach to people who have DSDs, such that it was no longer seen as something they had to hide unless they wanted to.

He is basically talking about DSDs. I assume that if you get an unexpected positive for SYR gene you then investigate further.
I think his opinion of his own work can be trusted but not his understanding of the issue at hand. For the vast majority of men the presence of SYR gene will have lead to the normal development of a male body and for the small number of people with a DSD more examination is needed.

Thanks sandgroper.

A couple of things now leap out of that ABC article. Firstly, he was one of the group who campaigned to remove the testing in the first place. He has a reputational risk if he is seen to pivot now.

He has already shown that he is someone who disagrees with the premise that female people should have fair sport with a clearly defined category boundary that excludes male athletes with advantages. to me he has shown he is not about finding a solution, he is focused on including male people in female sport if he thinks that male person is suitable.

The other thing is that he seems far too focused on trying to convince people it is one single test and he seems to have avoided any mention of follow up testing. I prefer Ross Tucker’s way of describing it as a SRY screen and that it will then lead to clinical testing.

Sinclair’s arguments about a male lab tech could spoil a test and the expense to the world and that athletes in poorer countries will be disadvantaged is whataboutery at this stage.

If a test is contaminated, a follow up will be done. Yes, it has to be treated with sensitivity. Another way around that is to have two swabs taken at the same time and one held securely in case. I can see there might be ways that experts could suggest that will work here.

The cost to sport is the cost to sport. Frankly, if Sinclair didn’t campaign against removing sex testing from the start, sport would already be paying for these tests. Plus the court of arbitration would have less cases so less would have been spent on trials etc.

And I believe that experts have already pointed out that female athletes competing internationally will be then within reach of someone doing the testing so they can then be tested. That argument, which I think I have seen Tracey Holmes repeat is a nonsense. A female athlete competing at international level leaves their country, therefore they will be able to have a test done. A solution is also to have priority testing made available to them.

Sinclair is now at risk of coming across as a misogynist activist who cannot agree that female athletes should have their own sports category and that the category shouldn’t include any person with male virilisation. One the other hand, this seems to be the extent of the arguments used and they are rather weak.

Sinclair’s arguments about a male lab tech could spoil a test and the expense to the world and that athletes in poorer countries will be disadvantaged is whataboutery at this stage.

You'd hope that an accredited lab has better procedures and QC in place for this to be a real issue.

As far as I understood, people with CAIS are phenotypical women (and usually socially as well) and don't have an advantage over biological women (or only a small one). I seem to remember that the spanish runner, who was filtered out in the 1980s for CAIS, María José Martínez-Patiño, was allowed to compete as a woman after more tests and a court case. So finding out that someone is CAIS doesn't mean that her career is at an end, but that it is not just a simple swab and done.

If one looks up photos of Martínez, it's clear that this is a completely different condition than for example 46XY 5ARD.

Yes. It says something about his lack of confidence in labs.

However, I cannot get over his stance on this. The arguments he has mentioned in this article seems ideologically driven more than anything else. And weak.

I probably should check what the Murdoch Institute’s position is because I wonder if he fears cancellation.

Over the past few years I have read that the testing for CAIS and PAIS in the past was misleading and that potentially, male athletes with PAIS were considered CAIS. I think going forward, there will be research into this and hopefully we shall get clarity.

One thing that I have seen mentioned before is a height advantage. It a group has a height advantage, that will need to be assessed.

I have thought for years that lack of menstruation is potentially going to be considered an advantage for a person who is genetically male, and I have seen discussion by experts around this recently now too.

For now those athletes are included. With further research and understanding from a sports perspective, it is not known if they will be excluded in the future.

only a small one

Is it acceptable that a female athlete has to accept the inclusion of any group who have even a ‘small’ advantage that is not available to them as a female athlete in the competition?

There's much to discuss here, but just a drive-by comment - Ross Tucker does discuss the possibility of PAIS/CAIS being used as a loophole in the second (I think) video.

Those conditions are on a spectrum and the less-scrupulous clinician could decode an individual's PAIS as CAIS if they were so minded.

Obviously that is no reason not to screen athletes

Does Sinclair hold the same worries about the drug testing labs? I wonder if there has been evidence of them ‘getting things wrong’ there too?

I would imagine that drugs testing is far higher risk as they are single time-sample dependent. Someone’s SRY, CAIS, or PAIS can be re tested.

Just as a point of interest, yes, there have been several cases of sample contamination in doping samples. However, the far wider problem of contamination in anti-doping is where labs testing supplements, etc either do a poor job or are sent a sample which doesn't represent the final product, so athletes unknowingly dope themselves by consuming a supplement which is certified compliant, but in fact isn't.

Thank you.

It sounds like Sinclair’s commitment to fairness might be better directed at drug testing rather than SRY screening.

Surely, since it is the lab that might be the issue, a second swab can be taken at the same time as the first and sent to a different lab? Or tested in the same lab after sterilisation ?

This would mean that the athlete would not be told off a false result and caused distress and have to do the test again and wait.

It is a cheek swab after all and not a biopsy or something along that type of test.

How are they testing for the SYR gene, with qPCR? qPCRs (if set up and validated correctly) allow you to quantify the target gene so you'll be able to tell if your positive reaction is due to all cells in your sample containing the SYR gene or if there are a few stray cells from a male technician (who should be wearing gloves anyway) have fallen in.
Edited to say: the sample contamination issue is a distraction here.

This is what they do with drug testing. They take two samples then if the first sample tests positive then the other sample gets tested in a different lab.

The difference with sex testing is that it can be done at any time & is a simple cheek swab unlike drug testing where an official must actually observe the urine leaving the athlete.

I think this is what Ross Tucker has said is really key to get right, publishing the technical details for the tests so others with expertise can understand the process.

I would hope it will be the most robust and best method available and reviewed when needed. I would be disappointed if it wasn’t.

and it seems he considers a female to be “a not fully functioning male”

This is the bit that pisses me off the most. And I dont understand why it’s even about ‘advantage’.

Women’s sport should be for women. It’s not a right that people are born and can access elite sport.

99% of the country cant literally due to how they are born. People with DSDs or trans are not unique here. I am short. I am never going to be an Olympic athlete. I am not being discriminated against by tall people. I am just short and thats that.

Drives me fucking bonkers how dillusional and main character people are.

Yes, I agree it should the most robust method and a well set up qPCR based system with all necessary controls is exactly that.
If Sinclair has discovered the SYR gene in 1990 that means he has worked with DNA for about as long as I have and he should know this.

@Helleofabore Tracey Holmes, Tracey Holmes …. I used to have a lot of respect for her. Not anymore. Did you see her this week on the ABC when the IOC decision was announced?

I used to have respect for her too, but then I have not kept up with her articles etc for years. I am very disappointed, but then I also expect she is part of that group that would include Fitzsimmons.

I saw her on the IOC conference and I was disappointed. I had been watching her coverage about the Iranian footballers and thought she was trying hard enough to make sure she had published accurate facts throughout. Then I saw her coverage on this issue and it is disappointing. I don't think she is trying to present the facts and then encourage discussion on this. She has shown bias.

have not yet read all the thread.

I have seen complaints that it is discriminatory against female athletes. Sure, then everyone can do it?

I have also seen that GB team female atheletes have been told they have to pay the 180 pounds fee for the testing themselves - that is not acceptable.

The worry that people may discover something shocking about themselves is valid but easily overcome: if you are en route to becoming an elite athlete you know well before you are 18. How about testing everyone who is on that pathway?

I do see a problem with only testing for the Olympics, and only testing for elite sports and that is that without testing anyone can claim to be female and compete in a female category at grass roots and higher. How is the pipeline of elite female athletes going to continue if girls are leaving, say, athletics age 14 or 15 because people who aren't biologically girls are hoovering up all the medals and team places?

one of the things that strikes me about that photo from the Rio Olympics that shows the 3 who eventually go on to get the medals, and the next 3 is what they are wearing.

The women are wearing the mandated running gear for female athletes (stupidly tiny running pants) and the three medalists are wearing what the men are allowed to wear.

it is just so obvious. And i agree with pp that athletes with DSDs have been exploited by their national organisations for years. There are better ways to handle these things.

Yes, it probably makes sense to test people who are on a pathway that could lead to elite competition. Less disruptive to find out earlier. While it would be shocking to find out during athletic testing, the information could come as a shock whenever it is discovered. Is it worse than finding out when you're trying unsuccessfully to get pregnant for instance. Also with the rise in Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing, between 25-50% of pregnancies in various countries, and 75 in Belgium have NIPT which often includes sex chromosomes. So it is becoming increasingly common to identify DSDs during pregnancy, which would further increase preparedness as parents can act accordingly

I have concerns over the administering of the tests. I hope there are stringent conditions in place to prevent false results being submitted to the IOC. Especially as they are proposing a 'once in a lifetime' test.