Semenya's Gender Test Results Are In

[Skull Mason]

She has testes. She was born with testes which produce mass quantities of testosterone. She was also born without ovaries, fallopian tubes, or a uterus. While her testosterone levels are much higher than the aveage female they are actually lower than teh average male. Also, it's not like she just took on male characteristics. She has been that way since long before Ekkhart Arbeit entered her life.

Exactly, and now all of a sudden within a year her 800 time improves by 8 seconds. All that "natural testosterone" produced by her "testes" has always been there all along and now all of a sudden she is scorching her own time by 8 seconds within a year, with a coach who is one of the most notorious doping facilitators known to man??? Those testes and ovaries have nothing on performance enhancers.

I'm curious as to how you can tell me with such certainty that she is not doping???

 

[B_New End]

hmm, there are two threads on this:

anyways

Genetic testing of women over five Olympics found genetic gender issues in 27 out of 11,373 women tested, according to a 2000 Journal of the American Medical Association article. However, none were men deliberately posing as women, as competitors fear.

....

The concern that women with XY chromosomes have a competitive advantage “is malarkey. We don’t segregate athletes by height,” said Genel, speaking from an international endocrinology conference in New York that has sessions on intersex issues.

My sentiments exactly

The birth defect people don't talk about - Yahoo! Sports

 

[Gillette]

I think you and i can agree that "average" and "normal" have different meanings. Heck, "average" has three different meanings! Anyway, i don't see how it's so confusing that the average man has 40 to 60 times the testosterone production of the average woman, and yet the normal RANGES of male and female production overlap. And no, a woman producing testosterone in the lower end of the male range does not have to have ovarian cancer. She could simply be an athlete. Or, she could be genetically prone to producing more testosterone.

I'm going to have to ask you to show where you read it being normal for the testosterone levels of males and females to overlap because nothing I've found suggests that to be in any way normal, or healthy.

As for the witch-hunt accusations... why was it that Somenya was a perfectly acceptable woman before, and now suddenly she has to have testing? What behaviour was she exhibiting that suggested she was male? If we're going to go with your brethalizer analogy, how was she exhibiting drunkeness? Please explain to me what are the warning signs we need to look out for? Or is it simmply suspicious enough if a woman is "masculine" looking? Cuz, if that's the case, i know MANY lesbians that would have to have gender testing in order to run in the Olympics, and that doesn't sound right.

Had you read the link in my first post in this thread you would have read the following.

[QUOTE]
B. PROCESS FOR HANDLING CASES OF GENDER AMBIGUITY

1. The gender related issues will be handled as per the ‘position paper of
IAAF’ and the consensus agreement of IOC on the subject.
2. The gender issue is likely to arise as a result of:
a. ‘challenge’ by another athlete or team as brought forward to authorities
at an athletic event, including the President of the meet, technical
delegate, medical delegate;
b. ‘suspicion’ raised as to an athletes’ gender as witnessed during an antidoping
control specimen collection;
c. an approach made to the IAAF/regional AAA or National federation by​

an athlete or his representative for advice and clarification.

​

[/QUOTE]​

​

Her exterior genitals appear female so it probably wasn't (b). The most likely scenario is that a complaint was made by another athlete, prompting the IAAF to investigate. Two of her competitors made some very catty comments regarding Caster so it's not difficult to imagine one could have lodged a gender complaint in hopes of toppling her or just satisfying their petty jealousies.

For any athlete to improve performance in the 800M event by over 8 seconds in a year is truly remarkable. None of us would be surprised or incensed by testing for performance enhancing drugs because such doping is against the rules. I understand that gender/sex issues are sensitive but the fact remains that gender faking has occurred in the past. In response the IAAF has worked to prevent that happening while being sensitive to issue of chromosomal, endocrinal and sexual abnormalities and has set a definite yet, IMO, generous range for what is acceptable to qualify to compete in the women's division. Seriously, please read the full document.

Even if there were no complaint against Caster, her performance improvement alone would be enough to set whiskers atwitch. They aren't picking on a black woman, they aren't trying to penalize South Africa and they aren't looking to rout an intersexed person. They are investigating an athlete who has shown an uncommon improvement in performance. To imply that the IAAF has any motive other than due diligence in ensuring their standards of fair competition are being met is confusing to me. Why should the IAAF give a shit who wins what so long as it's done within the rules?

They take into account sexual reassignment considerations, they even allow some conditions that could enhance performance. To accuse them of being prejudiced against just this one DSD and to call it a witch hunt is preposterous.

I too, would like to see the IAAF report. I think this is all speculatory until we know all the facts. At the same time, i think the "guidelines" as set up by the IAAF are arbitrary, and do not allow for natural variation in the human population - just like the commonly accepted meanings of the words "male" and "female" do not allow for natural variation in the human population.

Again, they allow some conditions that could enhance performance, they take into account sexual reassignment considerations meaning even men can compete as women if they have completed the given steps. How is that arbitrary? I wouldn't even consider that particularly restrictive. They do allow for natural variation (surgical, too!) but not so far as it would give a competitor unfair advantage over the other athletes in that category.

If you don't agree that active male levels of testosterone (the hormone primarily responsible for physical performance) is enough to disqualify someone from competing in the women's' division then I don't see how you can support there being a point in having a women's division separate from men's either. If you eliminate the divisions you won't be creating a world of sport where a broader spectrum of people can expect to compete and win, rather you'll get a spectrum that is much, much narrower.

I don't wish to exclude anyone from competition, sport is a good thing. At present anyone who falls outside the range of the women's qualifiers is welcome to participate in the men's division, where they would not have a distinct advantage. If it's felt that this puts them at a disadvantage competitively, then that's acknowledgement of the advantage they have competitively over women and perhaps a third division should be created.

It's not such an outrageous idea, either. The ancient Olympic games and the first Modern Olympics barred women from competition entirely. It actually took from 1912 until 2000 before women were allowed to compete in the pentathalon. Progress does happen and it's accelerating. If "male" and "female" don't adequately describe the full range of sexual development and alternate terms are to be used, why pigeon hole those outside the definitions into only male or female competitive arenas?

Put it this way. A person with male levels of testosterone competing in the mens races will be competing on equal footing but would have a significant leg up in a woman's race. Someone with intermediate levels may not be competitive in the men's but would still have an advantage in the women's. I think you'd see more support for a third division being created than you would for these advantaged athletes to compete in the women's. I can't see women athletes supporting a move that could see them forced out of medaling in their own category.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I'm going to have to ask you to show where you read it being normal for the testosterone levels of males and females to overlap because nothing I've found suggests that to be in any way normal, or healthy.



Had you read the link in my first post in this thread you would have read the following.

[QUOTE]
B. PROCESS FOR HANDLING CASES OF GENDER AMBIGUITY

1. The gender related issues will be handled as per the ‘position paper of
IAAF’ and the consensus agreement of IOC on the subject.
2. The gender issue is likely to arise as a result of:
a. ‘challenge’ by another athlete or team as brought forward to authorities
at an athletic event, including the President of the meet, technical
delegate, medical delegate;
b. ‘suspicion’ raised as to an athletes’ gender as witnessed during an antidoping
control specimen collection;
c. an approach made to the IAAF/regional AAA or National federation by​

an athlete or his representative for advice and clarification.

Her exterior genitals appear female so it probably wasn't (b). The most likely scenario is that a complaint was made by another athlete, prompting the IAAF to investigate. Two of her competitors made some very catty comments regarding Caster so it's not difficult to imagine one could have lodged a gender complaint in hopes of toppling her or just satisfying their petty jealousies.

For any athlete to improve performance in the 800M event by over 8 seconds in a year is truly remarkable. None of us would be surprised or incensed by testing for performance enhancing drugs because such doping is against the rules. I understand that gender/sex issues are sensitive but the fact remains that gender faking has occurred in the past. In response the IAAF has worked to prevent that happening while being sensitive to issue of chromosomal, endocrinal and sexual abnormalities and has set a definite yet, IMO, generous range for what is acceptable to qualify to compete in the women's division. Seriously, please read the full document.

Even if there were no complaint against Caster, her performance improvement alone would be enough to set whiskers atwitch. They aren't picking on a black woman, they aren't trying to penalize South Africa and they aren't looking to rout an intersexed person. They are investigating an athlete who has shown an uncommon improvement in performance. To imply that the IAAF has any motive other than due diligence in ensuring their standards of fair competition are being met is confusing to me. Why should the IAAF give a shit who wins what so long as it's done within the rules?

They take into account sexual reassignment considerations, they even allow some conditions that could enhance performance. To accuse them of being prejudiced against just this one DSD and to call it a witch hunt is preposterous.


Again, they allow some conditions that could enhance performance, they take into account sexual reassignment considerations meaning even men can compete as women if they have completed the given steps. How is that arbitrary? I wouldn't even consider that particularly restrictive. They do allow for natural variation (surgical, too!) but not so far as it would give a competitor unfair advantage over the other athletes in that category.

If you don't agree that active male levels of testosterone (the hormone primarily responsible for physical performance) is enough to disqualify someone from competing in the women's' division then I don't see how you can support there being a point in having a women's division separate from men's either. If you eliminate the divisions you won't be creating a world of sport where a broader spectrum of people can expect to compete and win, rather you'll get a spectrum that is much, much narrower.

I don't wish to exclude anyone from competition, sport is a good thing. At present anyone who falls outside the range of the women's qualifiers is welcome to participate in the men's division, where they would not have a distinct advantage. If it's felt that this puts them at a disadvantage competitively, then that's acknowledgement of the advantage they have competitively over women and perhaps a third division should be created.

It's not such an outrageous idea, either. The ancient Olympic games and the first Modern Olympics barred women from competition entirely. It actually took from 1912 until 2000 before women were allowed to compete in the pentathalon. Progress does happen and it's accelerating. If "male" and "female" don't adequately describe the full range of sexual development and alternate terms are to be used, why pigeon hole those outside the definitions into only male or female competitive arenas?

Put it this way. A person with male levels of testosterone competing in the mens races will be competing on equal footing but would have a significant leg up in a woman's race. Someone with intermediate levels may not be competitive in the men's but would still have an advantage in the women's. I think you'd see more support for a third division being created than you would for these advantaged athletes to compete in the women's. I can't see women athletes supporting a move that could see them forced out of medaling in their own category.

First of all, could you show me where i said the IAAF was the perpetrator of the witch-hunt? I don't think i said they were. If that's what you inferred, fine, but that's not what i said, so please don't accuse me of it. While I do have problems with the IAAF guidelines, they have handled the situation according to protocol. For that, i respect them. No, the witch-hunt here is a media one - and i suspect it was started by a disgruntled competitor.

As for where i read that the normal ranges of testosterone overlap, you could have read that also, had you but read my earlier link. However, lest you believe that I'm one of those low-life's who relies solely on the unreliable information contained in wikipedia, I'll have you know it is information I already knew. In fact, it's information I learned while taking a class called "Developmental Biology." The textbook we used, also titled "Developemental Biology" (Fifth edition, by Scott Gilbert) discusses the effects of testosterone (as well as AMH and 5α-dihydotestosterone) on sexual development. This textbook says that the healthy range for males (pre-puberty to around 40) is 150 to 1200 ng/dl, and that the healthy range for females (same age range) is 30 to 200 ng/dl. Mind you, that's a large age range, and the peaks for both sexes are at the upper limit of that age range, but there is significant overlap.

This same textbook talks about androgen insensitivity, which is the condition that most fits the description of Semenya's situation. This is a condition in which the subject is insensitive to testosterone, leading to female secondary sexual characteristics and male genetic makup. The fun thing is, if you'd read another one of the links i posted previously, you'd not that such a condition renders the subject's body indifferent to testosterone (so even if such a woman has excess testosterone, it isn't going to give her any physical advantage). Do the IAAF rules and regulations take that information into account? 'Cause, from where i'm looking, they don't seem to.

Also, please don't patronize me again. I'm smarter than you think i am.

 

[Gillette]

First of all, could you show me where i said the IAAF was the perpetrator of the witch-hunt? I don't think i said they were. If that's what you inferred, fine, but that's not what i said, so please don't accuse me of it.

Here.

The fact that there is no push to test every single one of the women competing (and the men also) only suggests to me that this is a witch-hunt.

Since it is the IAAF who is responsible for testing being compulsory (as it was for a period) or case by case (as it is at present) the only inference I saw from this statement was that you felt that the witch hunt was being conducted by the IAAF.

While I do have problems with the IAAF guidelines, they have handled the situation according to protocol. For that, i respect them. No, the witch-hunt here is a media one - and i suspect it was started by a disgruntled competitor.

Then on this point we agree. A competitor with an axe to grind and a media salivating for juicy headlines make an ugly pair. Caster, regardless of the outcome is a victim.

As for where i read that the normal ranges of testosterone overlap, you could have read that also, had you but read my earlier link. However, lest you believe that I'm one of those low-life's who relies solely on the unreliable information contained in wikipedia, I'll have you know it is information I already knew. In fact, it's information I learned while taking a class called "Developmental Biology." The textbook we used, also titled "Developemental Biology" (Fifth edition, by Scott Gilbert) discusses the effects of testosterone (as well as AMH and 5α-dihydotestosterone) on sexual development. This textbook says that the healthy range for males (pre-puberty to around 40) is 150 to 1200 ng/dl, and that the healthy range for females (same age range) is 30 to 200 ng/dl. Mind you, that's a large age range, and the peaks for both sexes are at the upper limit of that age range, but there is significant overlap.

Well that's the problem with overly inclusive ranges isn't it? Including prepubescent levels of sex related hormones hardly gives an accurate accounting because it is only with the onset of puberty that our bodies start producing these hormones in earnest. Isn't it an equally valid statement that before the age of, say, 5 that males and females, on average, ejaculate the same amout of sperm? The terms "male and female" become a handy safety net. The same statement of overlap could not be made using the adult terms "men and women".

At 10-13yrs of age boys have levels ranging 1–619 ng/dL compared to 2–53 ng/dL in girls.
At 14-15 boys have levels ranging 100–540 ng/dL compared to 8–53 ng/dL for girls 14-17.
The low levels in boys nearly twice that of high levels in girls and the gap only widens in later years with women never higher than 70 ng/dL (excepting pregnancy).

Okay, premenopausal women have levels ranging 10–70 ng/dL, and given that during pregnancy a woman's testosterone levels can spike 3-4 times normal, using the high end that's 280 ng/dL giving a marginal overlap of low end levels for males 16-19 at 200–970 ng/dL and the very barest on low end levels of men 20-39 at 270–1,080 ng/dL. That's the extent of the healthy overlap of adult testosterone levels. I'm thinking, though that pregnancy is an unusual time to subject the body to the rigors of competitive running. Possible doping strategy? Hopefully not.

This same textbook talks about androgen insensitivity, which is the condition that most fits the description of Semenya's situation. This is a condition in which the subject is insensitive to testosterone, leading to female secondary sexual characteristics and male genetic makup. The fun thing is, if you'd read another one of the links i posted previously, you'd not that such a condition renders the subject's body indifferent to testosterone (so even if such a woman has excess testosterone, it isn't going to give her any physical advantage). Do the IAAF rules and regulations take that information into account? 'Cause, from where i'm looking, they don't seem to.

I take that to mean you still aren't looking at my IAAF_policy_link. In it you'd read the following.

6. Conditions that should be allowed:
(a) Those conditions that accord no advantage over other females:
- Androgen insensitivity syndrome (Complete or almost complete -
previously called testicular feminization);
- Gonadal dysgenesis (gonads should be removed surgically to avoid
malignancy);​

- Turner’s syndrome.

I also allowed for that when I said, ​

If you don't agree that active male levels of testosterone (the hormone primarily responsible for physical performance) is enough to disqualify someone from competing in the women's' division then I don't see how you can support there being a point in having a women's division separate from men's either.

I specified "active" in reference to the hormone meaning having action on the body which would not be the case with AIS.

Also, please don't patronize me again. I'm smarter than you think i am.

Ditto.

 

[joyboytoy79]

I take that to mean you still aren't looking at my IAAF_policy_link. In it you'd read the following.

I also allowed for that when I said, ​

I specified "active" in reference to the hormone meaning having action on the body which would not be the case with AIS.


Ditto.

Well, then, I don't see what your argument is... since, if she has Androgen Insensitivity, her testosterone levels will NOT give her the "unfair advantage" you claim she should not have. In fact, if you had read the link you pounced on me for not having read, and had paid attention and researched for facts (instead of just trying to build your argument) you would have read about this "Androgen Insensitivity" in your link, and when I posted a link about it you would have said "aha, that sounds exactly like what this woman is going through" and you would have understood that this statement you made is, in fact, false (at least where someone with Androgen Insensitivity is concerned):

Testosterone accelerates the growth of muscle (strength), bone (impact resistance) and red blood cells (oxygen delivery) it also reduces muscle recovery time (reduced fatigue). There is a division between males and females in sports competition for precisely this reason. If it turns out that Caster does have testicles and is producing male levels of testosterone, thus having the physical performance of a man, then she has the same advantage over women that a man would have. Why should the presence of an incomplete exterior sex trait justify her competing unfairly against women who lack the enhanced testosterone production?

Again, i postulate that for most people who have said she should be removed from the sport (this may or may not include you, as your stance seems to be wavering) the reasoning comes completely from a place of fear. They fear this woman because she is different. They don't understand how a woman can have testicles, XY karyotype, "male levels" of testosterone, and still be a woman, and they generally fear that which they don't understand. Yet, hers is not an unheard of case; there are many reported cases of exactly this phenomenon. Many women are completely unaware of their XY karyotype until they try to have children and seek fertility testing. As Semenye is only 18, i doubt this was a concern for her yet.

 

[Gillette]

Well, then, I don't see what your argument is... since, if she has Androgen Insensitivity, her testosterone levels will NOT give her the "unfair advantage" you claim she should not have.

How are you misreading my statement?
I said ACTIVE male levels of testosterone would produce an unfair advantage. If the individual has AIS then the elevated testosterone levels would not be active in body development and thus not a disqualifier from the women's division.

IF.

If an individual does not have AIS then the elevated testosterone does provide a developmental advantage. If those levels are in the male ranges then the advantage is supremely unfair and should absolutely disqualify them from the women's division.

In fact, if you had read the link you pounced on me for not having read, and had paid attention and researched for facts (instead of just trying to build your argument) you would have read about this "Androgen Insensitivity" in your link, and when I posted a link about it you would have said "aha, that sounds exactly like what this woman is going through" and you would have understood that this statement you made is, in fact, false (at least where someone with Androgen Insensitivity is concerned):

I did read my own link, I did read to understand it, I did take it into account when I mentioned active levels of testosterone and yet no "a-ha" moment such as you propose occurred. Why not? Because the drastic improvement in Caster's performance is out of pace. Because, as I mentioned in the first thread on this, to my eyes Caster's running gait looks more than a man's running gait than a woman's. Men's and women's gaits are different owing in part to the differences in their pelvic girdles. Also, from what I've read about AIS is that those with it present as closer to the feminine ideal (tall, lean, generous breasts (supermodels, in short)) than their XX karyotype counterparts.

I'm not a doctor and even if I were I wouldn't be so foolish as to make "a-ha" diagnoses from information gleaned online, but as a layman I consider these to be things that could result from higher than normal female levels of testosterone ACTING on development and performance rather than lack of testosterone action. Until the official IAAF report is released I'll stick with my "Hmm"s and the leave the "A-Ha"s to the hysterical.

Again, i postulate that for most people who have said she should be removed from the sport (this may or may not include you, as your stance seems to be wavering) the reasoning comes completely from a place of fear. They fear this woman because she is different. They don't understand how a woman can have testicles, XY karyotype, "male levels" of testosterone, and still be a woman, and they generally fear that which they don't understand..

Got it. Instead of witch hunters the label is now xenophobe.
So long as you can demonize those who disagree with you you needn't make any valid points (or pretend to with the intellectual dishonesty of nebulous overlap references), you needn't admit you were wrong in accusing the IAAF of missing AIS when they had clearly outlined it as being allowable in the women's division, nor do you need to make sense of calling it an "accident of birth" while at the same time calling it "god given", which would mean part of His grand design, not accident.

Not to mention calling someone else presumptuous while presuming "god" would have valid meaning in the scope of this discussion.

Regarding my wavering, not true. My stance is the same as it was in my first post.
1) The IAAF is following their protocols for testing to ensure as level a playing field as possible. They are not conducting a witch hunt.
2) The IAAF has been pretty thorough in their consideration of gender/sex related issues and has set fair if not generous standards to allow for them.
3)Testosterone levels outside the allowances of the IAAF's regulations which produce an unfair performance advantage should not be allowed in the women's division.

My stance on Caster is nonexistent. Without official results it's all "if"s.
OK, no, I do have a stance on Caster's case. I think whoever made the press aware of the testing in the first place should be shot and I think the accusations, even if proven untrue, will be a heavy burden on Caster for the remainder of her life.