Nuntius wrote:G R E Y wrote:RE: Height – comparing this kind of genetic feature – not sex influence – has nothing to do with male puberty advantage. Shorter than Wemby males are successful in the NBA. Almost no one at Wemby’s height can do what he can. And punching power is also really not comparable to height considering the dangers of increased injury. Be it among common public or at pro levels, male puberty has across the board benefits (more below).
This part of your post assumes that male puberty affects intersex people the same way it affects non-intersex people. In fact, your whole position on male puberty advantage hinges on that very assumption. The assumption that male puberty and elevated testosterone levels affect intersex people the same way they affect non-intersex people.
But isn't it a fact that the testosterone and androgen receptors of intersex people do not work the same way they work for the rest of us? Isn't this why a number of intersex conditions fall under the umbrella of AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome)?
Why are we assuming that male puberty affects intersex people and people with AIS the same way it affects everyone else? Doesn't your argument collapse if you cannot prove that male puberty actually does have that effect on the people in question?
G R E Y wrote:RE: Khelif’s record. So what? All that points to is Khelif not being a particularly good boxer. Still, Khelif has won three golds and one silver in international and world competition; Yu-ting has won five golds and two bronzes in international and world competition. If their respective records show losses to XX women, that does not make them XX -- which could very easily been clarified had either boxer appealed the results which showed both failing two independent sex tests.
But ignoring the very notion that both boxers are pummelling their competition in the Olympics is glaring. I write this after Yu-ting had defeated yet another opponent (with no DQ or even points deducted for a rabbit punch) and two opponents wanting to end fights early. So is the point about taking up competing spots to begins with. And with them, opportunities, money, podium and ranking chances.
The argument that is commonly made against these athletes is that they are dominating the women's category due to having a Y chromosome. Comparing their records with other athletes in their category to see if they are actually statistically dominant is relevant, don't you think?
G R E Y wrote:The main point about XY DSDs is that they should not be competing with XX (nor, of course, should XY).
So, in which category should AFAB athletes with a XY DSD compete in?
G R E Y wrote:A point about terminology. The overwhelming majority of XX go through female puberty; the overwhelming majority of XY go through male puberty. So when XX or XY are referred to, the accompanying puberty is implied. The approximately 40 DSDs for either side, male or female, are very rare.
Yes, intersex people are indeed very rare. No one is denying that. But the discussion we've been having in this thread has been exactly about these rare conditions. So, how male and female puberty affect the bodies of non-intersex individuals is not relevant here. What's relevant is how they affect the individuals with these intersex conditions.
G R E Y wrote:This includes 46XY-5-Alpha reductase deficiency like Semenya’s (which about 1 in 50,000 people in US have) More info here about how it comes to be:
and Swyer Syndrome (even more rare, with about 1 in 80,000 in US affected) the latter which is sometimes used at an intended gotcha trap or whataboutism. It is a condition which has XY chromosomes, yes, but here’s more info about how it comes to be:
Neither Khelif nor Yu-ting can have Swyer because of their higher T levels. And given the risk to more brittle bones with this DSD, competing in boxing would be madness.
From those who understand DSDs:
So, the central claim of this part of the post is that Khelif and Yu-ting cannot have Swyer syndrome. And, also, that they suspect that the variation is the same as Semenya's, 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency.
The fact is that we do not know what kind of intersex variation Khelif and Yu-ting have. We have absolutely zero information on that. Emma Hilton and Colin Wright are simply making assumptions here.
We shouldn't base any determination upon assumptions, don't you agree? We need actual data, actually evidence, to make those determinations. Not assumptions.
G R E Y wrote:The entire point of using XX vs. XY and their respective DSDs is
which puberty route a given body goes through, male or female. Because regardless of whether a male puberty body loses to female puberty counterparts, the boost of male puberty is on the whole entirely advantageous. Here’s a basic list in handy visual form:
I'm not doubting the boost of male puberty.
What I'm doubting is what I mentioned at the very start of this reply. The assumption that male puberty and elevated testosterone levels affect intersex people the same way they affect non-intersex people.
This particular Sex Matters visual takes that assumption as a fact. But it isn't actually a fact that male puberty and elevated testosterone levels affect intersex people the same way they affect non-intersex people, is it?
Neither the chart nor the Wiley article refer to intersex people and the effect that male puberty or female puberty has on their bodies. So, they aren't relevant to this discussion because, once again, I'm not doubting the male puberty advantage in a vacuum.
G R E Y wrote:And this part is relevant from previously posted
https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/At the same time, on the substance, the IOC has acknowledged that after Khelif’s first win on Thursday, it scrubbed from its own website the notation that at least Khelif—if not also Lin—has high T. To explain this, it said in part that T levels don’t matter, that lots of females also have high T. This is intentionally misleading.
Female athletes with high T—including those with polycystic ovaries—have T levels towards the top of the female range, not outside of the female range or inside the male range. Their sex is not in doubt. As I explained above, “high T” in an athlete who seeks to compete in the female category is code in international sports for either doping with exogenous androgens or being biologically male with bioavailable endogenous androgens. There’s no indication that either Khelif or Lin is doping.
As an aside, the reason many federations and the IOC itself for years used T as a proxy for sex is that it’s an excellent one: neither ovaries nor adrenal glands produce T in the male range, only testes do. If you’re looking for biological sex rather than legal gender, it’s certainly more accurate than a passport.
This part is indeed relevant. It is definitely more relevant than the two previous links since this article does indeed talk about athletes with intersex variations. And that article does, in fact, make a claim about how testosterone affects intersex individuals. Here's that claim:
Athletes with 5-ARD and PAIS have an XY chromosomal complement; they have testes; their testes produce testosterone well outside of the normal female range; their androgen receptors read and process their “high T”; and as a result, their bodies masculinise through childhood and puberty in the ways that matter for sport. Thereafter, their circulating T levels continue to have their usual performance-enhancing effects.
The problem is that the article presents absolutely no evidence of that claim. It presents no sources, no data to back up that claim. And since the author of the article, Doriane Lambelet Coleman, is not a scientist in a related field (she is Professor of Law) and the claim itself has never been scientifically proven then there is no reason to take that claim as a fact. It is her opinion, it's
NOT science.
G R E Y wrote:Finally, even T suppression does not take away male biology advantage baked in through puberty:
Interesting thread but it once again isn't really relevant to the discussion we're having. The thread in question was written back in January 21, 2022, and seems to refer specifically to the Lia Thomas controversy that was in full swing at that time. Hence, all the points about T suppression. The thread is about transgender women, it's not about intersex people.
G R E Y wrote:About those sex test results: It’s a misnomer that these were IBA tests. IBA responded to calls from coaches of boxers fighting Khelif and Yu-ting to conduct said tests. The tests were conducted by CAS approved independent labs. The results were sent to both boxers, and to IOC. And while private – both boxers recently sent letters to IBA that they did not consent to make the results public, as is their right – it is now clear that they did indeed fail XX tests as outlined here (https://www.iba.sport/news/iba-clarifies-the-facts-the-letter-to-the-ioc-regarding-two-ineligible-boxers-was-sent-and-acknowledged/) and here (https://www.iba.sport/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Ltr-fr-IBA-to-IOC.pdf) and had a higher T advantage as well. So while the actual test results cannot be publicly revealed, what they can reveal allows for very short connection of dots.
And to clarify:
I never said that the tests weren't conducted by independent labs. My issue was never with the tests themselves, it was with the lack of available evidence at the time that what Kremlev said was factual.
But ever since Abrahamson came out and independently confirmed that he has also seen the tests and that they were indeed testing for XX/XY chromosomes, I have accepted them as a fact.
That's all I ever wanted from the start. An independent verification that what Kremlev said was factual. That was always my issue with it and Abrahamson's article (along with Bergmaniac who posted this article in here) cleared the air for me.
G R E Y wrote:RE: Sex testing. Using outliers like a case with Ewa Kłobukowska , or bringing up nude ‘peek and poke’ tactics are a skewed presentation of available current info. Once again, these are presented but the calls from evolutionary and developmental biologists, from former Olympians, from the overwhelming majority of female athletes polled in Atlanta, and from civil rights lawyers don’t get equal – or any – billing here.
This whole discussion is precisely about outliers. So, I don't know how using an outlier like Ewa Kłobukowska is a skewed presentation of anything. Ewa Kłobukowska is a prime example of how sex verification has been used to disenfranchise women in the past.
You can definitely make the claim that sex verification isn't like that now and that going back down that route won't disenfranchise women now or in the future but I do not see how you can dispute that it absolutely did in the past.
G R E Y wrote:Selective examples of ‘not exactly scientific’ sex tests as well as yet another branch swerving away from the main issue – that African or Asian women are vilified as ugly or manly – only serve to look elsewhere except the one glaring place – test the boxers. Not to say gender stereotypes doesn’t happen:
But Martina Navatilova, for instance, to this day gets the ‘you look like a guy, would you pass the sex test?” taunts on X.
So, let me get this straight:
When I mention the
fact that the vast majority of women whose sex has been in doubt are African and/or Asian, I'm "swerving away from the main issue".
But when you post tweets from utter randos like this "Innocent Bystander" account (I'd take a second look at that account before reposting their crap, by the way) or randomly talk about Navratilova, it's all cool and not swerving.
When I develop an argument that is not directly related to the topic at hand, I'm swerving, but when you do it, it's cool.
Is this really how you think a good faith discussion is supposed to go, G R E Y?
G R E Y wrote:This happens to be a gross initiation into certain aspects of womanhood, like the male gaze and its heaps of expectations, that generations of women are all too familiar with. You know what else women since time immemorial are all too familiar with? Learn to take a punch and be **** silent about it. No.
The irony here is that this is exactly what you've been doing throughout this thread. This is exactly what you and all those tweets you posted have done to the athletes in question, athletes who were assigned female at birth and have spent their entire lives living as women. And, perhaps more tangibly, this is exactly what you have done in this thread, G R E Y.
You have bullied other women, like The Sebastian Express, into silence in this very thread. Do you even realize that?
And since you're pretending to talk on behalf of all women in this thread. Here are some who disagree with you ->
https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/participation-of-intersex-athletes-in-womens-sports.pdfThis is a brochure that, unlike a lot of the tweets and links you've posted in this reply, actually does talk about the topic of this discussion, intersex athletes. And here's what it says:
II. DO INTERSEX ATHLETES HAVE A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
WHEN THEY COMPETE IN WOMEN’S SPORTS?
Intersex conditions, as we’ve said, are varied and defy generalization. Many intersex conditions are benign when it comes
to an individual’s physical characteristics that are relevant to sport. Other intersex conditions may cause female athletes
to have atypical quantities or responses to testosterone and therefore may generate concern about competitive advantage.
Sometimes, however, these concerns are misplaced or overblown. For example, an individual with Androgen Insensitivity
Syndrome (AIS) has XY chromosomes, and as a result, a body that produces testosterone. But AIS also limits—either
completely or partially—the body’s ability to respond to testosterone. This inability to respond to testosterone means
that individuals with complete AIS will have female bodies (except for the presence of undescended testes) because it is
testosterone produced in utero that, when received by the body’s unimpaired receptors, will trigger the development of male
genitalia as well as other male secondary characteristics. An athlete with complete or near complete AIS will have little or
no usable testosterone in her body, and therefore should not raise any concern about the competitive advantage over other
women. In fact, since women’s bodies typically do use testosterone (though in quantities generally less than men), women
with AIS would actually have less musculature and other physical characteristics that are perceived to relate to athletic ability
than do women without AIS.
So, let's make one thing clear. Your opinion here is not as ubiquitous among women as you're pretending it is.
G R E Y wrote:And speaking of breaking stereotypes:
We already discussed how that Daily Mail tweet is a lie so let's skip this. Vet your sources better next time.
G R E Y wrote:And non-binary Nikki Hiltz competes in women’s 1500m race.
Yep because she was assigned female at birth.
G R E Y wrote:Is there any controversy of XX competing in male categories? You just don’t hear of it. I wonder why? If there’s a single thing that confirms male puberty advantage, this is it.
And we, once again, loop back to what I said at the start of this reply. The assumption that male puberty and elevated testosterone levels affect intersex people the same way they affect non-intersex people. This is the central point of contention here.
G R E Y wrote:You cannot present only old sex test failures without looking into modern testing, ask whether scientific non-invasive tests exist, and answer that there’s no such procedure. Just because you don’t know about them, and haven’t looked too hard, doesn’t mean there have been no improvements:
Well some counterpoints: Here’s a thread discussing a type of test – CHEEK SWAB – and what it shows:
This thread addresses variations of testing, including touching on Kłobukowska:
The basic gist is cheek swabs are the initial gateways of testing and if any anomalies arise, further tests can confirm DSD and which one. There’s plenty of time to get this implemented – for the next Olympics, but there must be IOC will to ensure female categories are that and not open categories in practice.
AND: (And I’m so glad I took my time putting all this together in this post given the thread below) here’s a clear, chronological outline of the various sex tests since they were first used, to the 1960s, to the 1990s, to today, and all the issues and advancements along the way. So to say that there’s no such reliable test nowadays is incontrovertibly false:
Yes, science (and technology) has progressed immensely so it makes sense that modern testing is way better than it used to be in the past. Those tests can indeed be used to verify whether a particular athlete has an intersex variation or not and even what specific intersex variation they have.
But as long as it has not been proven that these variations actually affect the athletic performance of intersex athletes and thus give them an unfair advantage then what's exactly the point of them?
Unless, of course, this has nothing to do with the notion that these athletes have an unfair advantage at all. So, what is it, G R E Y? Why are you insisting on sex verification when there is no scientific consensus on whether those intersex variations actually give these athletes an unfair advantage?
G R E Y wrote:RE: Semenya’s appeal – this has to do with being forced into lowering T levels. Ok. But it does not negate the fact that someone born with XY 5ARD DSD has normal level of T for males. And they didn’t have to do a peek and poke naked test to determine it. So it IS possible. And those born with such a DSD should not compete versus XX females.
Sure, athletes with Semenya's DSD have testosterone levels normal for men. No argument here. That is factual.
But I will ask once more:
Has it been scientifically proven that the testosterone circulating in the bodies of intersex people works the same way it works for non-intersex people? Because, once again, the testosterone and androgen receptors of intersex people do
NOT work the same way that they work for non-intersex people.
So, why should those athletes be excluded when it has not been proven that they possess an unfair advantage?
G R E Y wrote:As to the part about Doctor MJ’s point about external genitalia being a determining factor for where DSDs should be categorized – beyond the hugely offensive nature of such an assertion (I know it wasn't meant that way) – this is not it. Vaginas and penises don’t do the running, punching, competing. The external genitalia is not the determining competitive factor. It is a body going through male puberty that is *the* determining factor at given levels of competition.
Calling out Doctor MJ, possibly the only person in this discussion who has been civil throughout this whole thing, for something that he didn't even support (but mainly proposed as an option that he didn't even support) is absolutely hilarious.
G R E Y wrote:Semenya smoked competitors. This year’s 800m F winner, Keely Hodgkinson ran it in 1:56:72. Semenya ran the 800m in Rio 2016 in 1:55:28.
Let’s look at this chart chronicling over 100 years of the 800m race:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1098302/olympics-800m-gold-medal-times-since-1896/First, since women have had their own category, NONE have come close to beating men’s times in over 100 years.
Next, there’s Rio, 2016, in seconds: 115.28. Semenya’s time wasn’t even an Olympic or World best. Semenya’s best time would beat a men’s category all the way back in 1908 (116s).
It is very, very interesting that you claimed that the statistics didn't matter when they indicated that Khelif and Yu-ting are NOT outliers and yet they suddenly matter for Semenya because they indicate that she is an outlier. It's almost like you have double standards or something.
G R E Y wrote:Would Khelif, Yu-ting, or Semanya even have made it to the Olympics had they competed in their male puberty-based sex category? (I realize we know for sure only of Semenya’s DSD but the signs pointing to DSD for the two boxers are mounting).
No, they wouldn't have made it to the Olympics. And that's part of my argument so thank you for making it for me. You see, despite the fact that you (and a lot of others) keep calling these athletes men and despite all the talk of them having an unfair biological advantage, their performances are nowhere near the performances of male athletes.
G R E Y wrote:I’m curious about how they’d fare vs. other DSDs in their respective sports. That may be a more accurate measurement of peer capability. Is it any wonder that there are growing calls from and for XX athletes to have a clearer sex-based category? This includes
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/08/08/daley-thompson-interview-ioc-defend-womens-sport/, Boris Becker, Judy Murray, MV, Christ Evert, among many brave others.
Is it any wonder there are hundreds of biological males are killing it in dozens of XX-only intended sports?
While there clearly needs to be a better solution than the current IOC stance of leaving the female category open in practice, it presently is a great disservice to everyone involved, with holes big enough to punch and run through unimpeded.
DSDs are the exceptions that prove the male puberty vs. female puberty rule. Sex categories by their nature are exclusionary, even considering DSDs. They should not be centered around which all other XX competitors are organized.
In short, bring back sex-based categories via the aforementioned swab tests. We have the means and know how to do so. Get it right.
As I've said in the past, I would definitely agree with a third, intersex category. Intersex athletes have called for such a category to exist as well. Have the athletes that you mentioned supported the existence of such a category?
What's your view on it? Would you agree with the creation of a third category for intersex athletes? And maybe a fourth for transgender athletes?
And since this is the end of my post, let me re-iterate my central argument so that there is no accusation of "swerving" for the umpteenth time:
Is there a scientific consensus that male puberty affects intersex people the same way it affects non-intersex people? Without the existence of this scientific consensus, how do you justify excluding AFAB women from women's competitions?
Also, let me say that: setting a standard of being civil with Doctor MJ, who is by far the best poster I have ever seen on the internet (discussion boards, reddit etc) is not fair to us, and not much different than saying players other than Messi are not soccer players at all.
