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.

I hadn't ever realised those running pants and vests were mandatory I though the runners had choices. 😳
I sort of though women liked them no drag.

Yes, considering doping scandals etc it's not hard to imagine some countries cheating

It's kind of like how I can't drive due to a medical condition. It makes me sad, and it's pretty inconvenient, but it's not a God-given right, and I just have to accept it. Sometimes the bodies we're born with mean we can't do everything we want to. That's just life.

They aren't mandatory. Clothing must be non-transparent and must not impede the judges' view of racing technique (e.g. in race-walking, the knees must be visible, as there are specific rules relating to gait.) There are particular rules relating to the display of representative colours (country, club, county, etc) and detailed rules about footwear, but very few about clothing.

I find this infuriating. And as you point out, it's not just 'left-wing' media that do it, it's all of 'em! Is it so bloody hard to produce a headline that doesn't contain an untruth?

that's changed then? it used to be mandatory. See also beach volleyball.

Beach volleyball definitely had rules about bikini sizes and 4cm side seams if I remember correctly.
One of the teams were disqualified or told to change because their pants were too big.

But I didn't think that applied to track and field athletes

In general, I would say that people with VSDs should have accurate information about their bodies and their sexual development, and that the information should be empowering and not a negative thing that should be hidden. I agree the context of how the testing is done is important.

The experience of the athlete with CAIS who went through repeated rounds of testing, banning, appealing etc in order to become a female Olympian was undoubtedly negative. But their unusual experience translated into a committee place in the IOC and a key role in the 2003 decision to allow men who’d transitioned to compete as women. That wasn’t ok and went on to affect far larger numbers of women than the current protestors allow us to say. Golf, cycling, running, swimming, weightlifting, archery, rowing, cricket, football, all sorts of egregious male resource grabs stemmed from that key decision. Bravo to Kirsty Coventry and all those who put shoulders to the wheel to reverse it.

Thanks

@PermanentTemporary
"The experience of the athlete with CAIS who went through repeated rounds of testing, banning, appealing etc in order to become a female Olympian was undoubtedly negative. But their unusual experience translated into a committee place in the IOC and a key role in the 2003 decision to allow men who’d transitioned to compete as women. "

Are you referring to María José Martínez-Patiño, who I mentioned earlier? I didn't read anything about her being on the IOC, just that she started an academic career. But I only read what was available online.

I certainly remember reading a summary of the outcome of that meeting and Martinez-Patino was on the list of those attending.

This BBC report looks OK by their standards:
IOC: The key question for sport after biological female decision - BBC Sport

I agree with this.

I have a DSD (which is why the crap spouted about these conditions makes me particularly cross) and, whilst the chances of me ever competing in the Olympics are indistinguishable from zero, there are other things my body doesn't "allow" me to do, such as have children. It sucks, but, as you say, it's not a right.

One thing I think people forget is that no-one is eligible to enter all spaces, be it because of their sex, their nationality, their age, their lack of employment status or membership or qualifications, or whatever. Literally no-one.

Being tall is an advantage in some sports, it's a hindrance in others and neutral in others. As a lanky bugger gymnastics was never going to be my sport.

If cais individuals are allowed into female sports there needs to be a close and careful monitoring program to ensure that they are not over represented because the lack male characteristics may not be enough, the lack of female characteristics may confer enough of an advantage to make a difference. Lots of people with talent and drive have to give up their sporting dreams and while it is tragic for them those who sustain a major injury or have a serious illness have to come to terms with the consequences.

And yet, people with CAIS are such a tiny proportion of the genpub. But for sure, that will be taken advantage of. But still, if it's come down to arguing about CAIS, that's still a massive win, isn't it? Seems like that's their last shot.

If there actually was any risk of male lab techs contaminating samples, wouldn't a simple solution be to just always use female staff for the sry test as they can’t contaminate it?

It's a radical and crazy idea, but it might just work! 😁

You must have been one of her few fans. Have never understood why the ABC hired her or kept her employed.

Yes, that would be one solution, except I don't think this is a problem at all, or it shouldn't be a problem in a well run lab. Professor Sinclair knows this, he just threw this in as a distraction. And even if some male member of the lab manages to drop a few of his cells into a sample, the entire point of qPCR is quantification of gene copy numbers in a sample. You can tell if the SYR gene is present in only a small percentage of the sample (as in case of a contamination) or in all cells that were extracted (as in case of a sample from a male person).
He is disingenuous and clearly has an agenda.

Yes, I should have emphasised my leading ‘If’!