By Helen Lewis, in The Atlantic.
Please read the whole thing before commenting and restrict comments to the issue framed in the article, which I am not going to attempt to summarize. If you don't know what 5ARD is, please don't comment.
ADDED: If you have trouble accessing that article, try "What does science tell us about boxing’s gender row?" (BBC).
Posts
115 comments:
Can't read the article without giving up my credit card number ($79.99 for one year subscription). It says a month is free, but we all know about how hard it is to cancel a subscription online.
"Can't read the article without giving up my credit card number..." Oh, that's a problem! Sorry
Behind the paywall for me but can anyone confirm that the author of the essay is defending allowing the fighters into this competition because they both suffer from 5ARD and thus present externally as female? Because, if this is the case, then they should never have been allowed to compete at all since 5ARD does not prevent male puberty in those with XY pairing. I watched the IBA conference the other day- they quite clearly reveal that both fighters were disqualified because both have XY which isn't some sort of complicated or hard to interpret testing regime that give ambiguous results.
However, you really don't have to even go that far- you can just look at both fighters with your lying eyes to see that both are very probably male.
In short, the only error I see from the Olympic committee is in not enforcing a rule that you have to have XX sex chromosome pairing to compete in the women's division.
Once you get through all the Leftwing blather and insult labels its a rather interesting point. Some women with XY just have unusually high level testostorne beause of that "5dLR (sic)" condition. BTW, I could have done without hearing their female genitilia take on a "masculine appearance".
The author, if I understand her, seems to want better testing to identify these Kinds of people. Well, Okey-dokey. She also states the gap between male and female can be 10-50 percent depending on the sport. Well, in combat sports the gap is much larger. Its not just a scientific difference, its that most men enjoy contact sports and many take pride in their ability to "take a punch". Most women, OTOH, don't like getting hit in the face. Probably because they don't to ruin their looks. The women with High testostorone probably have the male view of combat sports.
"Behind the paywall for me but can anyone confirm that the author of the essay is defending allowing the fighters into this competition because they both suffer from 5ARD and thus present externally as female?" She is not.
As a father of 2 daughters (now lawyers) who competed in Women's sports, and as a grandfather of 3 granddaughters who are participating in sports as pre-teens, I think it's grossly unfair to women to have to compete with men. If you are XY you are a man. You can make as many fine distinctions as you want, but it's grossly unfair to XX women. End of story.
Here's what Claude AI says about Helen Lewis:
"Helen Lewis, a staff writer for The Atlantic, has written about transgender issues and women's sports, but I don't want to state her exact position with full certainty without double-checking her most recent writings on the topic. From what I recall, Lewis has expressed concerns about fairness in women's sports when it comes to transgender women competitors, particularly those who have gone through male puberty. However, her views are nuanced and have evolved over time.
Lewis has argued that there are legitimate questions about competitive fairness that need to be addressed carefully, while also emphasizing the importance of trans rights and inclusion more broadly. She has suggested that blanket bans on trans women in sports are not the answer, but that some restrictions in elite competitive sports may be justified in certain cases."
Here's what ChatGPT 3.5 says:
"Helen Lewis, a writer for The Atlantic, has expressed concerns about transgender women competing in women's sports. She has argued that allowing transgender women to compete in women's categories can raise complex issues, particularly regarding fairness. Lewis has pointed out that transgender women who have gone through male puberty might retain physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance, even after transitioning. This, she argues, could potentially create an uneven playing field in female sports categories.
Her position is generally supportive of finding a balance that respects the rights of transgender individuals while also considering the implications for competitive fairness in women's sports. She has called for nuanced discussions and thoughtful policies that can address these concerns without resorting to exclusion or discrimination."
If Imane Khelif was born with 5-alpha reductase deficiency, which hasn't been clearly established, he is clearly not a woman by a meaningful definition that could justify his participation in women's boxing as a contestant. Like the others I'm not willing to expose my CC info the publishers of The Atlantic, a periodical I do not trust given its role in Hillary Clinton's Russia, Russia, Russia fraud.
The only bright line test is XX and XY. Everything else is BS.
It looks like the governing body will have to wade through each of the (apparently many) different situations and make a decision about each one as to whether it falls on the F side or the M side, and they'll have to make each of those decisions using a clearly defined set of guidelines. The main guideline should be a statement that puts flesh on the intuitive (legitimate) idea that for some of these conditions, there's an unfair advantage in competing as an F. That would likely have something to do with whether your body starts pumping out M levels of testosterone when you hit puberty. But they'll just have to suck it up and make decisions about all the cases and do it before, not in the middle of or after, competitions.
Good, because the Olympic committee's decision can't really be defended honestly.
Question and answer with Gemini AI from Google:
"What is Atlantic writer Helen Lewis's position on transgender women competing in women's sports?"
"I can't help with that right now. I'm trained to be as accurate as possible but I can make mistakes sometimes. While I work on perfecting how I can discuss elections and politics, you can try Google Search."
Pretty lame...
No problem at all opening the article, no paywall or even challenge.
Now: I believe this is another opinion piece, masquerading as a news information article. This is something pivotal that is being ignored, studiously, within the piece: There is no mention at all of the controversy surrounding males pretending to be females for the purpose of athletic competition. Why?
Simple DNA testing is sufficient. XY chromosomes covers nearly all of the cases. The finer points of androgen uptake and sensitivity and so on, these are all helpful culdesacs to steer the conversation - into a planned dead end.
We should not be opening up huge culturally-divisive opportunities for a selected few, currently popular within the world of identity-politics, to exploit.
Not buying into the madness. This is a case of a simple testing protocol, nothing more.
Very fair article. Makes a great point that the real concerns are not transphobic.
I chuckle at all the anti Atlantic virtue signals from the usual suspects.
If you don't know what 5ARD is, please don't comment.
5-alpha reductase deficiency is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads (testes). Their bodies, however, do not produce enough of a hormone called dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT has a critical role in male sexual development, and a shortage of this hormone disrupts the formation of the external sex organs before birth.
The issue in this context is whether they benefit from male sex physiological and metabolic dievelopmemt that is a privilege for them and a risk for their female sex competitors.
In the BBC piece: "the make-male gene. It’s the master switch of sex development,” Uh-oh. "make-male" and "master" switch: doubleplusungood.
Don't get why "incomplete" Y should make a difference. Any Y = M>F.
"[Helen Lewis's] position is generally supportive of finding a balance that respects the rights of transgender individuals while also considering the implications for competitive fairness in women's sports."
What rights are those, are they different from mine? And what does transgender mean. Given the woke rhetoric on that question, it means whatever is immediately convenient to those who also use the phrase "minor-attracted person".
Facebook's Meta AI's response:
"What is Atlantic writer Helen Lewis's position on transgender women competing in women's sports?"
"Helen Lewis has expressed concerns about transgender women competing in women's sports, particularly in cases where they have gone through male puberty. She has argued that trans women who have gone through male puberty have physical advantages over cis women, such as greater muscle mass, bone density, and lung capacity, which could give them a competitive edge in many sports. However, I don't have information on her most recent opinion on this topic. If you have a specific article title you'd like me to summarize, I can help with that."
"The article in Atlantic that you should summarize: The Olympics Could Have Avoided the Ugly Boxing Debate"
Helen Lewis's article "The Olympics Could Have Avoided the Ugly Boxing Debate" in The Atlantic argues that the controversy over transgender boxer Laurel Hubbard's participation in the women's heavyweight category at the Tokyo Olympics could have been avoided if sports organizations had established clear guidelines and rules for transgender athletes.
Lewis contends that Hubbard's participation, while lawful, has sparked a heated debate about fairness and biology, with some arguing that transgender women have an unfair physical advantage over cisgender women. Lewis suggests that sports organizations should have developed more nuanced and evidence-based policies for transgender athletes, rather than relying on simplistic and inclusive measures.
She also argues that the debate highlights the need for a more thoughtful and inclusive approach to transgender participation in sports, one that balances fairness, safety, and inclusivity. Lewis emphasizes that the issue is complex and multifaceted, requiring a more comprehensive and evidence-based approach than current policies provide.
Please note that I've summarized the article based on my understanding, and there might be additional details or nuances in the original text."
Why is 5ARD more important than a Y chromosome? What other genetic deficiencies must we test and provide dispensation? Do 5 percentile short men, perhaps dwarf men, get to box with women because various genetic markers suggests they are unfairly short to compete against other men. Why is testing for Y chromosome considered "going backwards" as one IOC official suggested, if the IOC has sex based sports? I'm against making athletes expose genitals in order to be grouped, yet testing for the existence of a Y chromosome seems rather unintrusive and easy to do. The rest is trying to make arbitrary rules to allow for unusual circumstances.
The boxer who beat that Italian woman has been beaten by 9 women in the past.
I can't read the article for the reasons Brylinski notes. I do know what 5αR2D is. I have written at other sites that I find these cases to be a bit (a bit!) difficult.
Unlike, say, a Lia Thomas, who was just a dude but decided to swim in the women's category, these two boxers have (probably) never been anything but girls-and-then-women in their own eyes. It's one of the rare cases where the phrase "assigned female at birth" actually makes some sort of sense. It's awful to be discussing someone else's body in this way, but both boxers were probably born with female-looking bodies, or at least more-female-than-male. It's understandable, then, that the parents would be told "It's a girl!", and then would raise their children as daughters.
As these daughters grew toward and through puberty, their bodies would become more masculine. This has to be a hard thing for both children and parents. But they remain the same people they were, right? I can totally understand why these athletes would say, "Hey, I grew up as a girl and competed with girls, and now I will continue to compete with women."
But... they definitely have an advantage. They have been through something more akin to male puberty than female puberty. They have muscular strength and quickness that comes from training masculine musculature.
Not all advantages are unfair advantages. Letsile Tebogo can beat me in the 200m sprint because he's got great genetics plus serious commitment plus he's 25 years younger than me. Those are all advantages, but I think as a society we agree that they're not *unfair* advantages in athletics.
I think 5αR2D is an *unfair* advantage. As much as it sucks for these two boxers, they should not be competing with XX boxers who did not go through something like male puberty. This leaves them probably unable to meaningfully compete in any category. That sucks for them (not being sarcastic).
Yancey, to my mind the simplest definition of male (for mammals) is "produces small gametes" (just as the simplest definition of female is "produces large gametes"). People with 5αR2D produce sperm, not eggs. So they are, to my mind, not just "very probably" male, but clearly male, though of course with some sex development infelicities.
The external presence of male reproductive organs does not change the fundamental biology of the person. There is a gap that at a certain point women will not be able to compete with men in a sport like boxing.
1. These men have the neural systems of men. Women just react and move slower than men.
2. They have the bone density of men. The limiting factor in how hard you can punch is determined by the little bones in your hand and wrist. Even with boxing gloves boxers still break their hands first.
3. They fight like men. They are strategic and they are demonstrative. Men and Women fight for different reasons. Men naturally fight in a mating ritual. Women naturally fight in survival mode.
While I did not see both controversial fights, I saw one of them (simply because it was apparently newsworthy, and wanted to see what the fuss was about). It was pretty obvious (?) that - unfortunately I cannot recall the winners name - was punching well above what would be seen as normal for a woman. I did have to watch a few other women’s fights to see what normal looked like - for research purposes of course.
If they have a Y chromosome, genetic abnormality or what (I was only able to read the BBC article), they clearly have a significant advantage over other fighters. Of course, these are women that the top of the game, but you’d expect as a group of people reach the peak of what the body and mind is capable of, the differences would become small.
Would an average athlete be able to compete at the level of a ‘genetically modified’ athlete? (That’s using the ‘new-speak’ that cannot categorize disabilities, diseases, and abnormalities with negative connotations).
"Don't get why 'incomplete' Y should make a difference."
I've not heard that. There are geneticists who have described the Y chromosome as an incomplete X, which is technically inaccurate because the there are genes on the Y that do not pair with genes on the X, though it does help high school students appreciate the unique sex-determinative aspects of the XY pair.
It is said...
The body construct is purely male. Visual comparison of bicep/tricep/forearm on these boxers with the females is definitive. It is obvious, across their respective weight classes.
Unable to access Elon Musk's Grok AI without a paying subscription. Sad, I was looking forward to Grok's humor...
Typical Howard comment. No actual substance or intelligence but includes a declaration of superiority and condescension .
You are not really all that smart. People who think they are smarter than they really are are so common these days.
>The IOC argues that the IBA’s testing is flawed and used its own eligibility guidelines for women’s boxing—a passport check, which both Khelif and Lin passed.<
The IOC spokesman actually said this with a straight face!
Free link to article: https://archive.is/EbCQa
My understanding of disparate impact analysis is that any situation in which a minority is not represented in proportion to its percentage of the populace is improper. Considering that the linked articles indicate the rarity of the XY configuration with variations including the lack of exterior male genital development but with interior testes and testosterone production during puberty, as well as variations with testosterone insensitivity (resulting in typical female exterior presentation without female internal organs, such ovaries, uterus, etc., and the overwhelming XX status of female boxers, the presence of two XY boxers achieving medals is vastly disproportionate to their percentage of the female boxers and strong evidence that their XY status is an clear advantage over their XX opponents. In other words, what are the chances that these two are just better at boxing than women who trained just as long and hard as them and previously performed at a level qualifying them to compete in the Olympics? It seems to be something of a statistical anomaly.
Imane Khelif knows he has a natural advantage over women that didn't come from skill or training. But he doesn't want to compete against men for the same reason women don't want to compete against Imane Khelif.
The author states... "Both sides have demonstrated a lack of interest in women’s sports, and the well-being of all its competitors, that is tantamount to contempt. "
I beg to differ. The IBA is using a completely objective methodology to state whether the two people are male or female. They have XY chromosones, end of story. The IOC is using a ridiculously objective methodology to state whether the two people are male or female, their passport.
I probably have more experience with any discussion about 5aRD than most here, as that is the pesky troublemaker you are trying to inhibit when you take finesteride or dutasteride to arrest male pattern baldness, which I take (both drugs).
The cautionary note on all bottles of these drugs is that 1) no trying to get a woman pregnant while taking these and/or 2) no HANDLING of these drugs by pregnant women, as they may cause 'ambiguous or deformed genitalia in unborn children'.
So if there is a 5aRD issue naturally occurring in some individuals, I am somewhat sympathetic to genuine cases of ambiguous or deformed genitalia that can result, but clearly given the massive beatdown that took place, better metrics for establishing who is and isn't male or female need to be found so that true competition can take place, and not a genetically lopsided one.
For the record, I am 100% anti-trans-inclusion for cross-gender athletic competition, but this appears to be a naturally-occurring example that dances on the edge, yet clearly, was not remedied correctly.
Bayes theorem. If a DSD female is wiping out females in top competition, it's because of an unfair DSD advantage.
If you are XY you are a man.
These guys are XXY or something like that. If you go through any sort of male puberty you have a huge advantage over women and it doesn't really go away, even if you take estrogen.
All this was well covered by Carole Hooven in the book T: The Story of Testosterone, highly recommend.
What can't be found anywhere is what are the results of the IBF and the Olympic testing? Even in this article. Do these to people have XY chromosomes or not? Also, back when everyone thought the East Germans were pumping their female athletes with testosterone, it was considered cheating.
“If you don't know what 5ARD is, please don't comment.”
All you need to know about 5ARD is that it extremely rare—so rare that reliable estimates of its rarity are unavailable. If it didn’t give an advantage, the probability that two champion Olympic boxers would just happen to have it is effectively zero. Therefore it gives an advantage. All the yammering about genetics is irrelevant.
I found the BBC article quite interesting. I did not know that some XY people have atypical Y-chromosomes which prevent their bodies from processing testostorone, or prevent them from using testosterone for development.
Some initial thoughts:
1) DSD is very different than the transgender females in sports issue, in that some (most?) of these athletes genuinely think they are biological females for most of their lives.
2) If anyone suddenly finds out that they have XY-chromosones then there are many reasons to feel extreme sympathy for them. The fact that they might not be permitted to participate in female sports is a big one, but probably not in the top 5.
3) If it can be determined that an intersex person has the atypical Y-chromosome that resulted in their not producing or not using testosterone then I would be open to considering allowing them to compete in female sports.
4) In order to preserve female sports, we need a firm definition of female. To me, that is the strongest reason to oppose my above point (3). Unless there is a clear, unambiguous, scientific way to distinguish such people and incorporate that distinction into the definition of female.
5) Despite my point in (2), I would not permit someone to participate in female sports if they have an XY-chromosome which led their bodies to produce testosterone and develop accordingly in the typical male manner. Again, I have a great deal of sympathy for them, but the institution of female sports is too important.
6) The number of such cases is important. If they are so rare as to have a very small affect on female sports as a whole (as opposed to affecting a particular competition), then I would be more open to allowing the people in point (5) to compete. I'm still inclined to not allow it, but my point about preserving the institution of female sports would be weakened.
7) For female sports to continue to thrive, the conditions for participation must be widely understood by the public and considered to be "fair". So despite my feelings expressed in point (3), I suspect that "XX-chromosone" is the only workable definition of female for the purposes of sports.
If you have an XX category for the sport, then those who are not XX do not qualify. It's not that difficult. If you are someone with some anomaly, but are not XX, that's sad for you, but you do not qualify. Period.
The crowd that gave us "sex is assigned at birth" are the ones who have caused this problem. Sex is NOT "assigned." It simply is, as determined by the body, i.e. biology/genetics, even if genitalia looks ambiguous or people simply get it wrong by looking.
"Oh, I'm stuck in italics again...!"
Within each set XX, XY, and 5aRD XY, there is a distribution of natural capabilities that are mostly a function of testosterone when going up.
“When they hit puberty they start producing testosterone - which is what underpins male advantage in sports," says Dr Hilton.
The article basically says that we don't know enough about 5aRD XY but the "IOC makes an 'assumption of no advantage' - but there is no direct evidence for this, nor that there is a performance advantage with DSD athletes solely because of their genetic variations. "
In both groups there is a distribution of high end Olympic quality athletics capabilities. Given the sheer number of XX vs 5aRD XY samples (a ratio of 15000 to 1 or at best 300 to 1), there should be significantly more high end XX than high end 5aRD XY. Also there should be a mix of competitive but not dominating 5aRD XY to help define the distribution.
I would assert that, given the small population of 5aRD XY and the large population of XX females and the fact that two 5aRD XY are cruising to gold medals, statistics would indicate that high end athletic capabilities are more common in the smaller distribution and that the top of the curve where the real high end samples occur from the XX is lower than the that of the 5aRD XY. We know the top of the curve for the XX population, there are not enough samples of the 5aRD XY to know even the distribution of the curve.
In order to have 5ARD you have to have a Y chromosome and every definition of the abnormality refers to the afflicted as male.
It is the definition of 5ARD that you are male and you have a genetic deficiency that the male does not produce enough Dihydrotestosterone for their gonads to form externally while they are in the womb.
Some women with XY
Let's just stop you right there. Women with XY is a scientific, biological, genetic, DNA impossibility. Any person with XY is male by definition.
"5-alpha reductase deficiency is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X and one Y chromosome in each cell, and they have male gonads (testes). Their bodies, however, do not produce enough of a hormone called dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT has a critical role in male sexual development, and a shortage of this hormone disrupts the formation of the external sex organs before birth.
Many people with 5-alpha reductase deficiency are assigned female at birth based on their external genitalia. In other cases, affected infants are assigned male at birth based on their external genitalia, often an unusually small penis (micropenis) and the urethra opening on the underside of the penis (hypospadias). Still other affected infants may be assigned either female or male at birth as their external genitalia do not look clearly male or clearly female.
During puberty, an increase in the levels of male sex hormones leads to the development of some secondary sex characteristics, such as increased muscle mass, deepening of the voice, development of pubic hair, and a growth spurt. The penis and scrotum (the sac of skin that holds the testes) may grow larger. People with 5-alpha reductase deficiency do not develop much facial or body hair. Most affected individuals are unable to have biological children (infertile) without assisted reproduction."
https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/5-alpha-reductase-deficiency/
BTW, the BBC article is filled with errors like this:
“These people don’t make testosterone. They develop a very typical female anatomy,” Dr Hilton says.
The reason why the two female boxers were disqualified before was that they had elevated testosterone levels. That gave them higher bone density and more muscle strength and speed.
As they say, "The proof of the pudding is in the taste." Both of these women beat all their biologically female opponents and took the number one and two positions at the Olympics.
Adding a 5ARD category to boxing/wrestling/etc is simultaneously ridiculous and reasonable.
Here’s his official record as best I can tell.
https://boxrec.com/en/box-am/899786
It shows four losses in 2023 (classified as No Contest) due to failed blood tests and failed hormone tests.
It shows five losses to women in 2019 and earlier.
Four losses to women 2020-2021
I think I got that right.
BTW, I would add that we have testimony from XX their opponents that "I have never been punched as hard". These women have experienced the spectrum of high end XX athletes.
They very carefully avoid talking about testosterone production during puberty in those articles. Wonder why?
The BBC article explains DSD, “differences in sex development:
“It wouldn’t surprise me if some people with a type of DSD had some physical advantage over women,” says Prof Alun Williams. Those advantages could include larger muscle mass, as well as bigger and longer bones and larger organs such as lungs and heart.
There are some people born with XY chromosomes who have lost what Dr Hilton calls the "make-male" gene. “These people don’t make testosterone. They develop a very typical female anatomy,” Dr Hilton says.
We're finally seeing some factual reporting. Pretty much after the fact. This can be settled if political activists are kept out of the labs.
It is unfortunate that someone erroneously and in good faith raised as one thing cannot compete because it is discovered that they are actually something else.
It is also unfortunate that I was born shorter than others and with poorer eyesight, etc., that I am unable to compete at an Olympic, professional, or even college level (although I was able to run competitive junior high track). Is that unfair? Should I be entitled to a spot on the Olympic team because of some naturally-occurring deficiency? Of course not. That's just life. Some people are able to do things that others cannot. That's life.
I thought the BBC article was informative and fairly even handed.
Here’s my overall conclusion/ best guess. The two boxers in question suffer from a genetic disease that results in undeveloped or undeveloped genitalia. However they have an XY genetic code which otherwise causes them to develop as a male, including heavier bone structure, increased muscle mass, and larger heart and lungs which gives them more stamina than a woman.
The IOC in their haste to promote trans rights did not give them a simple dna test that would have identified this condition.
Change above to “undeveloped or underdeveloped”. I miss the edit button.
No! This “simple” test flies in the face of everything we know about epigenetics and it gives no guidance at all in he case of people with XXY chromosomes (which I believe is called Kleinfelter syndrome). I think that the test should be simpler yet — test their testosterone levels. Above a certain level the athlete must be disqualified from female competition, and it should not matter whether the athlete achieved that level via genetic abnormality or via doping.
If there’s something I’m overlooking, I’d appreciate the push-back.
I’ll give her nuance. In North Carolina a teenaged female volleyball player was left crippled when a transgender opponent spiked the ball hard into her face, leaving her unconscious, and partially paralyzed. The transgender opponent is said to have laughed at the sight of the unconscious girl on the floor, and some of his — I chose the pronoun deliberately — biologically female teammates joined in the laughter.
Explain your damned nuance to that partially paralyzed girl.
The point seems to be that XX and XY do not solely control production of testosterone, that an XX woman might have the testosterone advantage because of a genetic variation on a chromosome rather than because of the known (XX, XY) chromosme variation. So that the simple sex chromosome rule ( XX = female or XY = male will not prevent the ghastly spectacle of a man punching a women in the face at the Olympics. Well, OK. But it wouldn't be too hard to say that those with the testosterone advantage must compete with the men. This simple solution gets lost in talk about the many genetic variations. These many variations influence the life of individuals but they are not relevant to the Olympics or to sports such as women's track and swimming.
It's quite evident that no disciplined effort by a woman, no combination of coaching and training, will put her body in the same league physically with a man's body. Those with men's bodies will win all the trophies and scholarships without much of an effort if they are allowed to enter women's athletic events. That's reality. And how heartbreaking to work and train for years, getting up at dawn and travelling to swim sites - and then to see others walk off with the prizes without having made a similar effort because these others have the male testosterone advantage naturally rather than by illegal doping. And to see their coach allow a man who does not need his training to take the prizes from the women he trains because he is cowering in fear of losing his job which is to train women on how to win, not to watch men defeat women. And when it comes to actual physical harm as in women's boxing, still the coaches sit by and let women be harmed because they want to keep their jobs which are to show women how to box without dangerous physical harm.
The basic rule is that men can't compete against women beause there's no competition there and this means that those with the testosterone advantage must compete against men.
It's sad to hear of the difficulties some experience in their lives but they won't have better lives if they take advantage of legal loopholes to bully and harm women. And that's what is going on.
The fact is that we all have genetic “conditions” that prevent us from being competitive in certain sports, or even in any sports. I wasn’t big enough or fast enough to be very good at football. Or tall enough to play basketball. But I was pretty good at baseball. So that’s what I played. We gravitate towards what we are good at.
These guys were probably good at beating up girls.
The defining factor in biology is whether an individual has--or would have except for genetic anomaly/surgery/age--the capacity to produce ova or sperm. These men--and they are men--have testes. That is the only way to produce the levels of testosterone they have.
They either have internal testes or now-external testes that descended during puberty. Their cultures dictate being raised as female, not biology.
Finally--a female (ova-producing) may have high T relative to other women. Compared to males? Nope. The adrenal glands and ovaries cannot produce the levels of testosterone that the testes do.
I just want to school Brylinski that "quoting" garbage spewed by AI in a factual debate proves only that you don't understand how AI works.
+ 1
Have any males who underwent hormone therapy and puberty blockers **as children** competed as females in sports events? IOW males who never went through typical male muscular, skeletal and nerve development during puberty? Anyone know of any instances, and their outcomes?
From the second article:
"When it comes to Imane Khelif and Lin Yu-ting, we don’t have enough information to know if they have a DSD that would need to be regulated."
That is exactly what I pointed out to a left-of-center relative who insisted that Imane Khalif is a woman. She based her assertion on Khelif's birth certificate and that transsexuals in Algeria, an Islamic country, were subject to execution if found out. For my relative, no further information was needed. No further discussion would have changed her position, even though I pointed out that all the pertinent facts are still not known.
There's one indisputable fact. Khelif beat the living snot out of Angela Carini in 46 seconds, humiliating her. If that doesn't demonstrate an unfair advantage, what does?
The author is arguing against Diversity (i.e. color judgment, class bigotry). Good.
That said, there are two compelling causes to recognize differences between males and females: safety and fitness.
Assuming these boxers have 5ARD that would mean that they are males but because of a developmental abnormality they have diminished Testosterone levels. However, Males tend to have more androgen receptors than females so even if the boxers had Testosterone levels similar to females that smaller amount would have greater effect on them than on females. Also 5ARD while it means diminished testosterone production, it would also mean diminished estrogen production. I'm not certain how that would play out with regards to any advantage or disadvantage but it might have an effect. For example while estrogen plays a role in maintaining bone density in women, I have heard that it also caps bone growth. And that one of the reasons men are taller than women is that when females hit puberty the increased levels of estrogen slow and then stop longitudinal bone growth.
I thought that the IOC had addressed this a decade or two ago. Several Olympic medals were reassigned based on genetic testing. Hardest hit were the Soviets and East Germans, of course ,who were likely doing it on purpose, and some French skiers from the 1960s, who may not have known.
I have searched in vain to get past this discussion of XX vs XY, to get a more simple answer; what do these people have between their legs? Were they born as females, with female genitalia? If so, I have a hard time faulting them, unlike the trans guys that just want to pretend they are girls. Who knows, maybe outstanding female athletes, like a Babe Didrickson, also had some male chromosomes. Maybe Serena William does. That is just an accident of birth.
Also worth noting if the articles focus on 5ARD and other conditions that might lead to a person being Intersex, that frames the debate as "Ok if there is an exception to be made it is for Intersex folks so let's see if one should be made." This at the outset might seem to exclude trans-women who, other than their underlying mental disorder, are developmentally normal males.
Bingo.
I don't understand how allowing these people with ambiguous sexuality to compete as women is even a question. They can do whatever they want in other spheres--the job market, the marriage "market", whatever. But at least some fraction of them have an unfair advantage over normal XX women that is not only obvious, but dangerous to those women. There is no God-given right to box in the Olympics. Just make the rule that to compete in the women's events you have to be XX with a maximum level of testosterone, and the men's events are for everyone else.
It shows that the male boxer lost to female boxers until they and their opponents hit a certain age and then he started getting disqualified from fights for being obviously male.
Girls can do fairly well competing with boys and then something magical happens. It is called puberty.
The article is generally fair, though you can feel the gritted teeth to try to blame the right for making this part of the culture war when they did not start this battle.
I do appreciate the difficulties that a man (XY chromosomes) who has a hormonal disorder ends up with a female-like body and then hits male puberty. That does not change the fact that the individual is biologically male, gone through male puberty no less, and therefore should have a major advantage over biological women. You can feel for the individual's plight. However, the fact that life is not fair does not mean we then make life further unfair to punish everyone else. If a biological woman had this much testosterone in her body, she would be banned for life for blatant cheating.
But, sure, if you want women's sports to be dominated by transwomen and individuals with unusual biological disorders, go ahead. Not sure why anyone would want to watch it though, and I am not sure what the point is. We could just have open division sports with men and women competing together with the men winning 99.99999% of the time.
I also find it amusing that the IOC distanced itself from the IBA because of the latter's corruption. The IOC may be the most corrupt organization in existence. That or the UN. Gender by passport!
The concept of the rules is to eliminate disadvantage. For example weight class, and sex. Would these boxers fight in a heavier class to balance the circumstances?
The article poses a theoretical, like, 'what if Napoleon had B-52s at Waterloo?'
This situation is neither complicated nor ambiguous. XX or XY. Which is it?
In my world this would all be moot. One open division for all sports.
If 'women' are good enough, they can play. No more worries about pronouns or anatomy.
Fixed it.
The BBC article leadswith a falsehood" "Most females get two X chromosomes (XX), while most males get an X and a Y chromosome (XY)." No XX v XY is how to distinguish between men and women, a few rare genetic variations don't change that basic fact. And every time this comes up the issue of testosterone comes up but testosterone (to the best of my knowledge) has nothing to do with the different skeletal structures between men and women. These structural differences also have effects on athletic performance. The male skeleton is designed for maximum leverage increasing the force that can be applied. This is undoubtedly true when you look at the pelvis and I believe it also applies to the upper body. This advantage doesn't disappear with estrogen injections.
There's one indisputable fact. Khelif beat the living snot out of Angela Carini in 46 seconds, humiliating her. If that doesn't demonstrate an unfair advantage, what does?
Def sympathy for the boxer who got her nose broken. But, as a fighter, you have to be willing and able to take the punishment. Hate to say it, but she kinda pulled a Biden
One round knockouts
I do feel for the athletes here, as I do for all who are born with a condition that limits what they can achieve. That is what this is, but the issue of gender clouds everything. Should be simple, XX vs XY (with allowance for those with full androgen insensitivity). Here is a complementary article with a graph, which I found enlightening, showing sexual testosterone range differences after puberty - https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/
A few women athletes have tried testosterone injections to build muscle, which was illegal in former times when sanity ruled the IOC. However, those efforts have usually failed to increase their strength significantly greater than that achieved by women who simply worked out with professional supervision.
There's more to secondary sex characteristics than mere hormones.
I have been all around the world, and there are many places that essentially have an option for a 3rd sex, "Gender X", Kathoey etc etc. People with ambiguous genitalia and genuine hermaphroditism exist although we're talking about ones in millions of cases.
Genuine hermaphroditism is extremely rare, but I believe society should have a place for those kinds of people, which should or could include the boxers in question here. Unfortunately, for practical purposes XX and XY is a 99.9999999% accurate biological dividing marker that serves as an almost perfect legal boundary...everything else is semantics and counting the angels on the head of a pin.
Perhaps a 3rd category in both the Olympics and our societies in general could resolve some of this problem, and they could then undertake activities within it much as Kathoey do in Thailand. Problem is in the West most people that could make use of such a category wouldn't do so by default.
The gender binary is a construct, but it also really isn't, is it....
Single data point. Testosterone and male puberty provide a huge differentiator between men and women. I competed in powerlifting through the mid 90’s. Average squat and deadlift but very good bench press. Ranked in top 100 in US. Continued lifting over the years but did not train to compete. Got back into competition about 5 years ago. Highly ranked in masters level for my weight and age group. In my weight class for bench press at age 64 I would be tied for 7th in the world in the women’s division in 2024. Hard to overcome that base. There will always be edge cases, but being fair to those should not come at the expense of others competing in a sport. There are means to provide the testing needed. Seems the IOC is unwilling. And it makes it cloudy when not all information is shared publicly.
The powerlifting federation I compete in has male (M), female (F), and MX divisions. Part of it has to do with drugs that transgenders may taking to transition are often tested for and banned in competition. The organization was in litigation in Minnesota and was banned from holding competitions but was turned over on appeal: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2024/03/18/minnesota-appeals-court-overturns-usa-powerlifting-transgender-athlete-ruling
To think Ike Turner used to be scorned.
To me all this discussion does is obfuscate what I see with my own eyes. These two guys have the physical attributes of men. Would you let your daughter get into the ring with them?
It is also unfortunate that those same people may one day learn, that despite being raised as a woman, they lack a womb and unable to bear a child. No amount of pretense they are something else or allowance to be something else will prevent the reality that they are limited in doing and being all the things that might want to otherwise do and be.
It worked for me later than Brylinski tried.
Did you change the nature of the link? I can't tell from your comment above.
(I think you linked to an excellent article. I just wanted more people to read it.)
Clarification: I can read the BBC article. Not paying The Atlantic for their usual fare.
Yancey,
The link to the BBC article was free to access (for me).
It is very well written, and tries to stick to the science. Further, it does not draw a conclusion.
Actually, I would say it is the least biased article I have read published by the BBC in at least the last 100 that I have read.
The BBC article is good. There are actually about FORTY different ways to be DSD!
I am very pro women's sports (and especially women's spaces) being safe only for women.
My definition of a woman is certainly labelled "transphobic" by Leftists. However, I label them "accessories to rape" when they place an XY human with normal testosterone levels, functioning testes and penis, and a conviction for raping an XX human into a women's prison - where they then go on to rape other inmates.
Or …. They could just compete as males. But of course that wouldn’t be any fun.
Agreed!
There is a simple solution. The Olympics should have an XX category and an "Open" category. Anyone that wishes to compete in the XX category shall have a sample taken under IOC supervision to confirm their eligibility for that category. If you do NOT want a sample taken, you are perfectly free to compete in the "Open" division.
Of course, that is NOT what 100% biological men who merely identify as "women" want. They want their inclusion in women's sports to affirm that they are actually women.
I have yet to have a discussion with a Democrat about "transgender" people in women's sports where they did know things like the consequences of "5-alpha reductase deficiency".
Me bringing up actual biological facts in the discussion is immediately deemed to be transphobic!
Most of the Y chromosome is merely 1/2 of the code to make a human. However, there is a portion that truly contains the code to make a human a male. Some Y chromosome humans lacking that portion, essentially produce zero testosterone over the entire course of their lives.
I feel truly sorry for them! IMO, they are neither male nor female, and undeniably intersex.
Of course, I also feel sorry for people with 5-alpha reductase deficiency. IMO, they are actually male, but they were probably assigned female (incorrectly) at birth. After they hit puberty and start producing more testosterone, their testicles may then descend and their external genitalia in the location of the vagina/penis may be substantially altered. Life is certainly no picnic for them, even if the massive extra amount of testosterone does yield a gold medal.
There are a few (two I think) age-group records in U.S. swimming where the girl has a faster time than the fastest boy. There are zero adult swimming records where the record female has a faster time than the fastest male.
Puberty truly is a magical event! It makes boys much faster, and it gives to girls the unique ability to perpetuate the species.
Surprisingly, there is one possible swimming exception. In open "rough water" swimming, avoiding hypothermia is sometimes a factor in a few of the races. I believe women have medaled (against males) in those races. They may even have won gold. (However, I quit following the sport after one of my buddies that was world class suffered a heart attack and had to retire.)
“Oh, I'm stuck in italics again...!”
It was Quaestor.
trial.
I enjoyed watching Valarie Allman win the women's discus at the Olympics this year. That gave her back-to-back golds.
She has exquisite technique, and had a few "perfect" tosses where the discus just glideed away on the optimal flight path. Her longest toss was more than 4 feet greater than 2nd place, and way farther than most of the competitors.
However, I was shocked to see how far she was behind the marked World Record line! I looked it up, and the record is from 1988 when the East German women were still competing with massive amounts of male hormones.
The world record toss then is still 11.6 feet farther than the current gold medal toss. For comparison, all of Phelps' individual swimming world records have fallen in relatively short order.
I certainly disagree with your statement that male hormone injections are not enough to overcome professional supervision. If a woman gets both, they have a ridiculous advantage in strength sports.
The BBC article talks about Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. These individuals would hands XY chromosomes and make the normal amount of testosterone for a male, but due to rare genetics the testosterone basically has no effect. It would generally not be identified until reaching an age when the lack of menstruation warrants medical investigation.
It seems unlikely to give any unfair advantage in female sports. 5ARD, on the other hand, will result in virilization at puberty which makes it more of an issue.
Those claiming things like this don't matter should think about why some sports have weight classes. Perhaps, a muscle test or something could be a better way to discern and could allow some intersex and transgender athletes, while barring others.
However it's done, it needs to be agreed upon ASAP so it's established from the beginning. Much better to have hurt feelings upon disqualification than have it happen on the world stage.
Serena Williams has birthed two children. She therefore cannot possibly have an XY chromosome and 5ARD.
Of course, normal XX females do naturally produce varying amounts of testosterone. There were two females on the U.S. women's rugby team that had very thickened brows and heavy jaw lines.
Perhaps they and perhaps Serena have a little more natural testosterone than the average female. That is definitely an athletic advantage. Of course, having more fast-twitch muscle fibers is also a big advantage in strength/speed sports.
I was able to access The Atlantic article. It was shockingly fair, especially given where it was published. I'd go as far as saying that it may be the fairest non-clinical article on the subject that I've seen. I thank Althouse for sharing it.
I don't think there are any solutions that will satisfy everyone. I think the closest we can come is for any seriously competitive organized sport to establish clear, objective, visible, verifiable criteria for sorting athletes into competitive categories, and to stick to them. That may not be "fair" to everyone, but it's the nature of competition itself. (For example, there are a tiny minority of XY individuals who have been completely unresponsive to testosterone for their entire lives. For all practical purposes except reproduction, they are female in strength, structure, and capability.)
Not everyone is able to compete at an elite level. Not everyone is entitled to compete in any particular competition. Whether you eliminate gender categories or add more categories using any particular criteria, someone is going to be unhappy about it. Again, it's the nature of competition, especially among highly motivated, inherently competitive people. I think that the most we can hope for is that there will enough different leagues, competitions, etc. at all levels and selection criteria that everyone who wants to participate in sports can find a generally safe home, even if they aren't completely happy with it.
Alex Byrne’s book, Trouble with Gender, discusses the 5ARD cases and other edge cases in depth. He is a professor of philosophy at MIT and his main concern is the agenda-driven confusion about basic concepts about sex and gender — male/female being top of the list. Given the ferocity with which these things are policed in academia (he describes many cases in which professors were hounded out of their positions for wrong-think on this subject), it’s a bit surprising to see him take on this issue (having tenure as a full professor provides some protection), but take it on he does. Recommend his book highly to anyone interested in the subject.
Why do we have Men's and Women's categories in sports? We could just have a single category, and for most (not all) sports ALL the winners would be men. No women need apply, but if they want to be beaten, they can participate and take the punishment. We could also eliminate weight classes in boxing and wrestling, and other sports, and let 140 lbs. men be beaten up by 200 lbs. men (or women).
I'm not a scientist (who first said that?) but there ought to be a straight-forward way to distinguish Males from Females, and if the experts really can't distinguish, then let's have an "Other" category, but the women don't have to compete with the "Others", and the Others can compete against each Other.
On an emotional (or scientific) level, it seems like the question is determining who is male and who is female. But on an operational level, the only question is who shall be permitted to compete in the restricted category (so-called "women") and who must compete (if they compete at all) in the open category (so-called "men"). The question is political at its very core, it is about privilege and discrimination. That we choose to privilege and protect women, rather than short people, or lefties, is a reasonable political decision, but political all the same.
Nothing in physical reality can ever really be completely captured by a precise definition (e.g. Pluto's planetitude). There can be no once-and-for-all-purposes definition of male and female. There are, or should be, separate standards for who sees a gynecologist, who uses the female restrooms in public, and who competes in "women's sport".
And as for sport, there might as well be separate definitions for different sports. What it means to be a woman in boxing should probably be different from what it means to be a woman in archery.
Here’s another good article I read today. https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/ It draws conclusions. I assume it’s difficult for DSD / 5ARD individuals emotionally. But what that calls for is early testing in sports to avoid situations where someone is later banned. As the Quillette article notes, the whole purpose for women sports is because of the biological sex differences. It’s not that difficult. They’re just making it difficult.
Algerian wins gold today. Hugely popular at venue and back in Algeria, where born and raised female. Taiwanese goes for gold Saturday.
Jack over at Ethics Alarms says "BITE ME ANN" because you asked for people to read the article first. Thoughts Ann?
https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/09/you-think-im-too-tough-on-ethics-alarms-commenters-ann-althouse-says-hold-my-beer-i-say-bite-me/
I was surprised at both articles. Despite a couple of quibbles, BOTH essentially admitted there ARE real physical advantages to being (Y) male. It has been frustrating to read, repeatedly about how declaring gender (It's Ma'am!) is a level playing field. Nay, nay it's training not biology. Feh.
And yes, the intersect (very, very) few have drawn a poor hand. But noting there is a wide spectrum of genetic markers just muddies the waters more. Are we suggesting person A has only a 1% advantage due to a detailed genetic analysis? So do we let them pay on.... or add a 0.5 Kg weight to their shoes? Lord I hope not.
A final point (not directly on toic). For yeaars I had an assigned duty to review and coordinate feseral funding of research projects. I never saw one whee the recommendations did NOT include further research is needed. So of course those whose jobs include studying genetic differences report there is more, always more, to this tangled web.
I think a lot of this nis the prestige a country gets for having a olympic gold medal in anything. Like in China where the state trains olympic athletes and their failure is a matter of politics. They are punished for losing.
So, it's hard and confusing figuring this stuff out. The fact that two of these people ended up besting all of the other women should tell us something.
I found these articles about Caster Semenya with a lot more detail than was previously published about her genetic and physical characteristics.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/67367157 :
"It was in the Cas [Swiss Court of Arbitration] ruling that Semenya's specific DSD was confirmed as 46 XY 5-ARD (5-alpha-reductase deficiency). People with this particular DSD have the male XY chromosomes. Some are assigned female or male at birth depending on their external genitalia.
Semenya told BBC Sport that she was "born without a uterus" and born "with internal testicles" and said: "I am a woman and have a vagina".
Cas said, external athletes like Semenya with 5-ARD have "circulating testosterone at the level of the male 46 XY population and not at the level of the female 46 XX population", which gives them "a significant sporting advantage over 46 XX female athletes".
https://time.com/6330414/caster-semenya-race-to-be-myself-interview/ :
"What do they know about biology? You don’t disrespect someone to that extent. When they say I am born a man, what do they mean about that? Are you saying that because I don’t have a uterus? Because I don’t have a fallopian tube? Because of my internal testicles? You say I’m a man. But I don’t have a dick.
When you’re disrespectful to that extent, I can be disrespectful. For example, and I’ll say the name, Sebastian [Coe], if he has small balls, does it make him a lesser man? No. If his sex drive is low, does it make him less of a man? You don’t need to prove a point in court by disrespecting people. I'm not a man. I'll never be a man. When it comes to situations like this, these are sensitive issues. You're not going to tell a woman that she is born a man. Having those internal testicles doesn’t make me a man....
Another important point you make is about how hard you’ve trained as an athlete. And you argue that if testosterone was that big a difference maker, you'd be running men’s times.
If I was a biological man, I’d be running 1:41. [In the 800-m, Kenya’s David Rushida holds the world record, at 1:40:91. Semenya’s personal best time is 1:54:25.] I don’t even have the power to stick to a man’s pace. If it was like that, I’ll agree. I’d say, "I get it, guys. I’ll run with men.” "
Semenya is definitely someone who has given me something to think about.
Post a Comment