This will make a formidable human interest story during the hundreds of hours of coverage during the Olympics. It will be interesting to see if Chand gets to the finals in the 100 m.

What bothers me is that this almost always targeted at females

The problem is the criteria and the methodology. The first real ethical problem I have is for the amount of effort that goes into it, how many people have they found who were men who decided that what they want to do is turn into a woman so they could compete in an easier field of athletes. What is normally happening is that someone who has been passing as female for their entire life is being asked to 'prove' they are a woman because they have broad shoulders and good muscle tone. If you can't see the dilemma with that then you aren't sensitive enough. Ask a random woman if they would be cool with being prodded (literally) to confirm they are indeed a woman.

Thank you for saying this. I have been telling people for years that gender, as we know it, is a social construct - not a biological one. Each person has to be considered holistically to determine whether they are 'male' or 'female'. Obviously we could use genetics, but as you have probably learned, genetic females can represent as males and vica versa. It isn't common but it is regular enough that we know about it. What bothers me is that this almost always targeted at females and the tests/questions they use are invasive and insulting.

The first real ethical problem I have is for the amount of effort that goes into it, how many people have they found who were men who decided that what they want to do is turn into a woman so they could compete in an easier field of athletes.

Thank you for saying this. I have been telling people for years that gender, as we know it, is a social construct - not a biological one. Each person has to be considered holistically to determine whether they are 'male' or 'female'. Obviously we could use genetics, but as you have probably learned, genetic females can represent as males and vica versa. It isn't common but it is regular enough that we know about it. What bothers me is that this almost always targeted at females and the tests/questions they use are invasive and insulting.

The line is simple, you were born and given a female name and live as a female as long as you can remember...you are a female in the eyes of sport.

We aren't talking about hermaphroditic people (intersex people are not common, and extremely uncommon in sport); we
are talking about honest to god women who are being told they may be 'too much of a man' to compete.

There is no alternative and we shouldn't be testing women for gender, period. If you have been passing as a woman for your entire life (I am deliberately not including people who transition from male to female) but you happen to have nice broad shoulders and narrow hips - that is not enough to say this woman needs to be prodded around and then what...she is determined to be 'too masculine', what does that do to this poor athlete? You can tell this is primarily men who are engaged in this because it is so totally asinine that only a man could have thought it up. I think the issue is we take sport WAY too seriously, if we start prodding women to judge their level of masculinity we are going too far.

BTW my opinion on this is informed by an in-depth article that was done by Real Sports last season which focused on an African female runner. If you have access to HBO NOW or if you can find it on you tube it is totally worth the watch.

We don't divide basketball into tall and short leagues. We do divide sports into men's and women's competitions. When that is done a line must be drawn or the division is meaningless.

There is no alternative and we shouldn't be testing women for gender, period. If you have been passing as a woman for your entire life (I am deliberately not including people who transition from male to female) but you happen to have nice broad shoulders and narrow hips - that is not enough to say this woman needs to be prodded around and then what...she is determined to be 'too masculine', what does that do to this poor athlete? You can tell this is primarily men who are engaged in this because it is so totally asinine that only a man could have thought it up. I think the issue is we take sport WAY too seriously, if we start prodding women to judge their level of masculinity we are going too far.

BTW my opinion on this is informed by an in-depth article that was done by Real Sports last season which focused on an African female runner. If you have access to HBO NOW or if you can find it on you tube it is totally worth the watch.

the only option is to say there is no such thing as gender and have open competition which then means pretty much all women should give up competitive sport.

You're right that the impulse to test come from questionable motives, i.e. "This person doesn't look like we think a woman should look." That thought process frustrates me, because I think women(and men) should be able to look however they goddamn well please without their gender being questioned. You also correct that testing for simply X/Y is also misguided to simply ensure a fair women's field.


However, if nothing is done about people with outlying biology, it seems like women's sports could lose quality in competition and potentially frustrate a large portion of the population. As an example, this year Caster Semenya is just going to destroy the olympics in the 800m, almost everyone agrees. There is speculation that she could win the 400 and 1500 if she really wanted. Of course, the opposite argument is that all sorts of people have outlying biology in other ways that allows them to be excellent at sports and we don't handicap those people. However, this issue seems to come down to simply testosterone.

As a side note, most of my thoughts on this are not my own. This article/interview I found very informative: http://sportsscientists.com/...rt-qa-joanna-harper/ .

If someone has lived their life as female, the line is already drawn.

I will say this, black women are often perceived as more 'masculine' by Western standards. Look at how much people talked about Michelle Obama's arms. So lets not act like this isn't going to have an out sized effect on black female athletes from poor countries who, as a result of a situation they have no control over, will be more likely to be subjected to these stupid tests.

Quote:

Below you will find what I think is a fascinating, exhaustive interview on hyperandrogenism in female athletes with Joanna Harper, who you will meet in the interview, but who describes herself as a “scientist first, an athlete second, and a transgender person third”. Harper is unique in the sense that she speaks on this incredibly complex topic from all three aspects – science/physiology, performance and as a transgender person herself. She has been, and is, part of the various panels and groups that are exploring the issue, and so offers insights with authority and experience on what is likely to be one of Rio’s, if not sport’s, greatest ever controversies.
It’s a long read, this one, but if you’re at all interested, I’d encourage you to do it in shifts, or settle in with a cup of tea and take in her insights!

I wanted to interview her to give you a broader understanding of the concepts. And so below, you can see every word she has kindly written to explain what she believes are the issues facing women’s sport right now.
But first, some context, and my views…

TopHyperandrogenism background

Caster Semenya is about as sure a gold medal bet as there is at this year’s Olympic Games. If I had one bet to make, and my life was at stake, I’d put in on her to win the 800m. This past weekend she just missed out on the Diamond League record, running 1:56.46, at a jog. A month ago, she won the 400m, 800m and 1500m at the SA champs, all on the same day. The 400m and 800m, 50 minutes apart, were run in 50.7s and 1:58, with a second lap faster than 60 seconds, suggesting that she could go much, much faster. I watched them in Stellenbosch and have never seen anything like it. The 400m was jogged until the last 100m, and could have been under 49 seconds, and the 800m could have been run in 1:55 if it was needed.
Caster Semenya could, and should, break the 800m world record. It’s the oldest record on the tracks, held by oneJarmila Kratochvilova, and if you know anything about the sport, you know that whoever it was who broke that record was going to be faced with a few probing questions. Most of them would have been doping-related, but in the case of Semenya, thanks to the public drama that played out in 2009, they’re related to sex/gender.
Specifically, we know that Semenya was identified as having elevated testosterone levels after her gold medal in Berlin (1:55.45, as an 18-year old). We know that some intervention was applied, and we can, through pretty basic deduction, figure out that it involved lowering her testosterone levels. How? Well, at the time Semenya emerged, from nowhere, the IAAF and IOC policies on gender verification (they should call it ‘sex verification’, by the way, because sex is biological, gender is social, but anyway) were vague and unrelated to testosterone.

It was as a result of Semenya, and the absolutely disastrous handling of that situation, that the policy changed, and until last year, the policy in place said that women could compete only if their testosterone levels were below an upper limit. That upper limit, 10 nmol/L, was set up based on a study done on all the women competing in the World Championships in 2011 and 2013. The researchers took the average testosterone levels of women with a condition called Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, which was already elevated at 4.5 nmol/L, and then added 5 SD to it.
The addition of 3 SD (which created a level of 7.5 nmol/L) would have meant that 16 in 1000 athletes would exceed the cutoff. That’s why the extra 2 SD were added, to make sure that the upper limit would apply only to those with hyperandrogenism (or those who are doping).

99% of female athletes, by the way, had testosterone levels below 3.08 nmol/L. So the upper limit of 10 nmol/L was three fold higher than a level that applies to 99 in 100 women participants.
Semenya’s performances, under this policy of reducing testosterone, dropped off in a predictable manner. Having run the 1:55.45 at 18, she never got close again, though did win Olympic silver in London (behind a doper), and a World silver in 2011. Last year, she failed to advance beyond the semi-finals in Beijing, and hadn’t even made the qualification mark for the preceding year’s Commonwealth Games. 2:00 had become a significant barrier, when the world record had been plausible at 18.

Now, she is untouchable. People will (and have said) that it’s down to her focused training, recovery from injury and so forth, but I’m not buying that. The change has happened for an obvious reason – the restoration of testosterone levels, and that is thanks to the courts – CAS, the Court of Arbitration for sport, last year ruled that the IAAF could no longer enforce the upper limit of testosterone, and in so doing, cleared the way for Semenya, and at least a handful of others, to return to the advantages that this hormone clears provides an individual. That CAS ruled this way because they felt that there was insufficient evidence for the performance benefits is one of the stupidest, most bemusing legal/scientific decisions ever made.
In any event, the situation now is this – Semenya, plus a few others, have no restriction. It has utterly transformed Semenya from an athlete who was struggling to run 2:01 to someone who is tactically running 1:56. My impression, having seen her live and now in the Diamond League, is that she could run 1:52, and if she wanted to, would run a low 48s 400m and win that gold in Rio too.

Semenya is of course not the only such athlete. And in the absence of a policy, I fully expect more in future. However, right now, Semenya is the unfortunate face of what is going to be a massive controversy in Rio. That’s because she was so unfairly “outed” in Berlin in 2009, when what should have been handled discreetly became a public drama, thanks to inept/arrogant SA officials. It won’t be any consolation to Semenya, and the media, frankly, have no idea how to deal with this – nobody wants it to be about the athlete, and it certainly is not her fault. However, it is a debate we must have, and I want to try to have it from the biological, sporting perspective, and steer clear of the minority bullying that so often punctuates these matters.
On that, I have written a couple of scientific articles on this issue, back in 2009, inspired by the relevance of the Semenya debate. You can read those at these links:

• For the International Journal of Sports Performance and Physiology
• For the SA Journal of Sports Medicine

Since 2009, that viewpoint has not changed, and let me state it as directly as possible:
TopTaking a position: Divisions must be defended
I do not believe that women with hyperandrogenism should be competing unregulated. I believe that the divide between men and women exists precisely to ensure fairness in competition (as far as this is ever possible), and I think that if you respect that division, then a policy that addresses hyperandrogenism must exist. I think CAS made a ludicrous decision, and I think it is damaging to women’s sport. Saying that men and women are different is a biological reality, and in sport, the difference has obvious performance implications. It does not mean “inferior”, but different, so spare me any “patriarchy” nonsense on this (I’ve heard it said, for instance, that women’s performances are slower because of the “fucking patriarchy”. If you think that, let me save you time and tell you to stop reading now, and save us both the aggravation).
I wish that it did not affect individuals like Semenya, but it does. It also affects many, many other women who frankly, have no chance of competing against the right athlete with an advantage that challenges the male-female division. And let me be very clear – this is not the same as tall people dominating in basketball, or people with fast-twitch fibres dominating sprints. We do not compete in categories of height, because we have decided that there is no need to “protect” short people. We certainly do not compete in categories of muscle biochemistry or neurology.

There are many aspects and arguments in this debate, and I respect most of them, but this particular offering of “whataboutery” is garbage, utterly inadmissible in this complex debate. If you want to play whataboutery in this way, think about weight classes in boxing, contact sports, rowing. Would it be fair if someone said “I can’t help my physiology, and I’m 2kg over the limit for “lightweight”, so let me in?” Or, if you did create a division for height in basketball, should we allow people who can’t help that they’re tall because of genes to come down and play with those under 6 foot? Of course not.
Point is, if you create a division to ensure performance equality based on a known performance advantage, then you absolutely must defend that division, however ‘arbitrary’ the line appears to be. The division between men and women is clear. It is obviously significantly influenced by testosterone, and few physiological variables are as clearly (if imperfectly) separate like testosterone is. If that division is to be respected, as it should, then hyperandrogenic women should have some regulation in place.

For that reason, I believe that the IAAF policy around an upper limit was the best solution, for now. It’s not perfect, and anyone who claims it’s simply about testosterone is wrong. But it’s a better place to be than where the sport is, and that’s my opinion. I cannot acknowledge the women’s 800m as a credible event as a result, but I hope that Semenya (and a few others) go out and run 1:52, and I wish she would run and win the 400m too. Sometimes people need to be struck between the eyes to see the obvious.

so I have a very limited understanding of this (but that will not stop me from commenting :))


I don't want to point out the obvious but if a athlete tests genetically as XX but produces testosterone - can a sports governing body really say that they need to take medication to limit its production? the whole point is that if the athlete takes T its banned, if some genetically unique individual produces more of it than someone else we want them to take drugs to suppress it?

that can not be right - more so if that individual is considered in every single other way to be female

Andrewmc wrote:

s
I don't want to point out the obvious but if a athlete tests genetically as XX but produces testosterone - can a sports governing body really say that they need to take medication to limit its production? the whole point is that if the athlete takes T its banned, if some genetically unique individual produces more of it than someone else we want them to take drugs to suppress it?

that can not be right - more so if that individual is considered in every single other way to be female

What bothers me is that this almost always targeted at females and the tests/questions they use are invasive and insulting.

I am saying that there is no ethical justification to do this to someone in sport. The personal violation this policy requires is worse than doping. Besides, she isn't doping, this is a natural situation for her and she was able to prove that her naturally elevated testosterone levels did not amount to doping - so be careful how and when you accuse someone. I am somewhat surprised at some reactions here, as if doping is the worst thing someone can do and therefore any policy or practice to prevent it (including 'gender' testing) seems ethically OK. Look, someone attempted suicide in 2007 who was subjected to these tests. That is how traumatic it is for women.

Imagine, as a man, someone came to you and said "You look kind of feminine and therefore we must 'test' whether you are man or not". I can't imagine a lot of men being OK with this. This is because of the commonplace thought that men are always better sports people than women. Maybe that is true, maybe not. What if we found a sport or activity that women tend to have a natural advantage over men at and the roles are reversed. Would you be so flippant about having your masculinity questioned?

Imagine, as a man, someone came to you and said "You look kind of feminine and therefore we must 'test' whether you are man or not". I can't imagine a lot of men being OK with this. This is because of the commonplace thought that men are always better sports people than women. Maybe that is true, maybe not. What if we found a sport or activity that women tend to have a natural advantage over men at and the roles are reversed. Would you be so flippant about having your masculinity questioned?

The issue is not broad shoulders and narrow hips. In the case you refer to it is believed to be internal testes and, very relatedly, testosterone levels in excess of 10 nmol/L which is 3x higher than a level that would cover 99% women (I'm cribbing this from the Science of Sport Article btw). In my view she is a woman because she identifies as one and that applies in every aspect of life. With the possible exception of sport (and fwiw I appreciate her predicament and admire her courage in the sporting sphere). If you don't want to make the sporting exception that's fine - and a logically coherent position - but it amounts to telling every aspiring female 800m runner that doesn't have internal testes and astronomical testosterone levels to pick another career. I'm surprised anyone would take that position without some hesitation but, as I say, each to their own.

@Julebag - I am not sure you would be too comfortable with it, not because you have something to prove in your masculinity or femininity (it is not immediately clear to me which gender you are) but because the criteria for 'testing' gender in athletes is incredibly arbitrary which overwhelmingly victimizes people of color and those without economic means to call it out as blatantly sexist. For example, the William's sisters are male-like in many ways but no one would dream of 'gender testing' them, primarily because their brand is extremely strong and they have a squadron of lawyers to defend them. Why aren't we 'gender testing' Sydney McLaughlin? She is muscular with narrow hips, she seems like a good candidate for 'testing'. If a little bile rose in your throat at the idea of 'gender testing' a 16 year old American female, that is the correct response. Why would we not have the same reaction to poor adult female athletes from countries with a much less evolved notion of human rights?

Women's records will eventually be largely held by physiological males.

What's a "pyhsiological male?"

What's a "pyhsiological male?"

I would say having the gonads and sex hormone levels of a male, especially if it were a life-long state, would be a good start.

What's a "pyhsiological male?"

its hardly fair or reasonable for a child who grows up as a female, who outwardly appears female is made to take testosterone inhibitors because she naturally produces more

We've agreed that its ok for cyclists on the bio passport who have abnormally high hemo globin capacities beyond the normal range to be able to compete against competition that is at a natural disadvantage but if a woman produces to much of a single hormone thats somehow different

Its not. The reality is that genetics ia a huge continuum and we have somewhat arbitrarily determined in certain areas what is / is not accaeptable even where the occurrences are completely natural

The problem is that people seem to think that gender / sex is binary when in fact its a continuim and there is a small subset of women who by different measures can be classified in a number of ways and its hardly fair or reasonable for a child who grows up as a female, who outwardly appears female is made to take testosterone inhibitors becau

You are advocating a political position not a scientific position. Gender/sex is most certainly NOT a continuum since the binary division accurately describes about ~99.7% of all people. Only about 1 out 1500-2000 people meet one of the many variants of intersex, and the sliver hardly increases if we throw in transgender. The reality is an extreme bi-modal gap with a shade of gray in between. The Olympics will either remain a binary division of sport between men and women, or it will not survive; especially if there is a concerted attack on women's sport to open it up to people with male levels of testosterone. The attempt to lean over backwards for inclusiveness is in effect a misogynist attack on women.

I guess the next thing the Russians will be doing now that their wide spread doping has been uncovered to win Olympic medals is all the guys get their balls and penises cut off and compete as women.

Simple solution, do away with "male" and "female" categories and have only 1 set of results with everyone competing together.

Simple solution, do away with "male" and "female" categories and have only 1 set of results with everyone competing together.

So you're saying women aren't equal to men? According to current standards in government and society you are a sexist by pointing out any differences between men and women.

You're right. I am pointing out the ridiculousness of all this. The issue of Transgenders being hurt is being taken more seriously than all the female athletes that are competing against genetic males and losing. I don't think transgendered Male to Female athletes should compete in the female category. Maybe there should be a third category?