all 28 comments

[–]DarthVelma 26 insightful - 1 fun26 insightful - 0 fun27 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

And of course you can't comment on the article to complain about them using a picture of Caster Semenya. Caster is not a woman. Caster is also not trans (the sub headline is about imposing testosterone limits on TIM athletes).

Testosterone boosts Caster's performance because Caster is male.

[–]materialrealityplz 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

Are they though? It sounds like Caster has an intersex condition and their sex is not quite determined. Wikipedia says they have XY chromosomes but it seems complicated, idk. Do we know for sure?

[–]Realwoman 23 insightful - 1 fun23 insightful - 0 fun24 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The sex is clear - male. Semenya has (had) testes and went through make puberty. His body was developed in the direction of producing smaller gametes (sperm), so his sex is male. Now, his body also has a problem with some of the male hormones. I think he can't produce dihydrotestosterone, and dihydrotestosterone is responsible for the testes descending and some other sexual development in utero. That's why he had ambiguous genitalia when he was born but he doesn't have ovaries, he has testes. Not normally developed testes, but testes. And also he produces and reacts to testosterone normally. So he's a male with a birth defect

[–]Lyssa 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I would not call the (rare) cases where there is a mismatch between chromosomes, gonads, external appearance of genitalia and hormones "clear". These intersex people are truely "non-binary" and for all I care can generally live as a man or a woman or something in between as they prefer and without making changes to the body they've been born with. I consider the fight of intersex people against mandatory surgery and for an "intersex" option on ID documents very justified. And they have pushed back against being appropriated by TRAs who fight for the exact opposite (medicalizing children to make them gender conforming).

However, Semenya should not be allowed to start in womens' sports because of her obvious advantage.

[–]Realwoman 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Sex is pretty clearly defined actually. You can see here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1262405372230459393

Saying that sex is clear doesn't equal support for unnecessary surgeries. Sex is binary. Semenya has a disorder of male sexual development.

[–]Lyssa 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am aware that gametes are the deciding factor for biologists. However, if somebody has the chromosomes, external genitalia and socialization of the opposing sex it strikes me as both oversimplistic to say "disordered male, nothing more to it". Your own link includes the following statement: "In humans, this sexual dimorphism is so consistent that 99.98% of births are unambiguously male or female." So biologists do recognise - exceedingly rare - disambiguations within the binary system. That is not the same as to (incorrectly) state that sex is a spectrum.

Are you generally opposed to the definition/labelling of certain rare conditions as "intersex"? And if Semenya would not be winning womens' medals but just be somebody observed female at birth, raised as a girl and suddenly developing male characteristics at puberty (probably a distressing experience) would you call her "him" after you'd heard that internal testicals have been found? Should that not be her/his own right to decide?

[–]Realwoman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, it's her or his right to decide although it looks like s/he was aware of the her condition from a young age, it's apparently more common where she lives.

I'm not opposed to the intersex label, but from I understand, it's not a scientific or medical term. Each condition is unique. Semenya's condition maker her or him a male for sure. But if we're talking about complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, for example, I think calling those people women is justified.

[–]MarkTwainiac 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The 40+ distinct medical conditions known as disorders/differences of sex development that are misleadingly called "intersex" in everyday parlance are complex, but they have been extensively studied and nowadays they are well-understood in medicine and biology.

People with DSDs are either male or female, they're just males or females with anomalies. No human is in between sexes, a third sex, or unable to be properly classified.

Semenya's condition, an enzyme deficiency known as 5-ARD, occurs in both male and female humans. But it's only a DSD in males because it causes the male genitalia to develop atypically in utero, while it has no effect on female development.

Semenya's DSD is very well understood. It only seems complicated and vague because South African sports authorities and politicians, Semenya, Semenya's legal team, big corporations that back Semenya such as Nike, queer theorists, the trans lobby and and many of Semenya's more clued-in fans have spent 11 years denying and obscuring the facts and trying to muddy the waters because doing so serves their own interests in different ways. The press and the powers-that-be in the internet era - led by male-dominated and TIM-heavy Big Tech, including Wikipedia, which in recent years has turned into Transopedia - have decided that muddying the waters about biological sex is a brilliant way of preserving the status quo of male dominance and libertinism and undermining feminism. After all, if biological sex is seen as super complicated and terribly difficult to determine - and the idea that there is no such thing as the male/female human sex binary cuz we're all on a sex spectrum takes hold - then feminism's analyses of, and challenges to, sexism, sex discrimination, sexual violence, sex stereotypes and all the other injustices having to do with sex, male supremacy and female second-class status that women have been fighting against for generations are all rendered baseless, without justification and nonsensical.

Semenya's particular DSD, 5-ARD, is well-recognized and accepted as a normal variation amongst even the general pubic in parts of the Dominican Republic where the condition occurs frequently due to consanguinity. In the DR, it's known as "penis at 12" syndrome: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34290981

Zach at the Paradox Institute has done great videos on this topic, such as these: https://youtu.be/7ZswkuxhAVA

https://youtu.be/XN2-YEgUMg0

[–]Lyssa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Interesting links! Thanks much!

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Re, this earlier point of yours:

However, if somebody has the chromosomes, external genitalia and socialization of the opposing sex

If you look more closely at the drawings, photos and descriptions given in studies of the genitals of those whose external genitalia might have appeared to be ambiguous or similar to/the same as the opposite sex upon cursory visual examination at the time of birth, I think you'll find that it really isn't the case that people with DSDs are born with the "external genitalia" of the opposite sex.

If it were the case, it would mean there are some DSD females born with penises and testicles, and some DSDs males are born with labia minor, labia minor, vaginas, clits and female urethras located in the vulva as female urethras are. But this is not really what happens.

On closer examination through eyes that more informed about the details of human anatomy, particularly female anatomy, what's often thought to be a penis in a female baby at birth is actually just an enlarged clitoris (known as clitoromegaly); and what might be mistaken for a scrotal sac is fused labia.

Similarly, in XY babies with DSDs that affect the external genitalia what's often mistaken for a vulva at birth is often empty scrotal skin/sacs into which the testes did not descend. And what gets referred to as - and is assumed to be - a "vagina" turns out on closer examination to be a blind, shallow pouch of skin inverted into the pelvis that has none of the properties of a vagina.

In the case of full-grown XY adults with 5-ARD, the papers I've read say the internal pelvic skin pouches that get mistaken for vaginas are usually under an inch in depth, and may just be a dimple. In the case of XY adults with CAIS, the skin pouches called vaginas tend to be longer, in the range of 2.3 inches. But that's still much shorter than the vaginas of XX females, since the "average" adult human vagina is said to be 3.7 to 7 inches in depth.

Aside from the depth, there are many other ways in which the "vaginas" of XY people with DSDs that affect genital development differ from actual vaginas. After all, a vagina is not just an indentation or hole in the groin made out of skin. A vagina is a muscular, highly elastic tube with its own unique, self-lubricating lining of special self-cleaning mucosal tissue that contains zillions of proton pumps and sustains its own unique flora. Functionally, too, a vagina is more than a hole to stick dicks into - though a flaccid hole for fucking is the way it's typically regarded in a male-dominated, penis-privileging porn culture. The vagina evolved to function rather brilliantly and miraculously in its core role as a birth canal with the stretchiness, strength and muscular force capable of propelling new human beings into the world. Since humans develop unusually large brains and heads in utero, the stretchiness and strength of the human vagina in childbirth is nothing short of miraculous, as is the amazing (albeit painful) expansiveness of the human cervix too.

In persons with 5-ARD specifically, the urethra often empties into the shallow skin pouch, which gives the appearance that XY people with 5-ARD "pee from their vaginas." Peeing from the vagina, in turn, is often used as "proof" that males with 5-ARD have female external genitalia. Semenya, in fact, has used this very explanation to bolster Semenya's claims of being female. But, of course, what such claims really show is ignorance of actual female anatomy. The fact is, females do not pee out of our vaginas. Our urethras do NOT empty into our vaginas, they are entirely separate structures to our vaginas - the openings of the two organs are adjacent in their placement in the vulva, but the female urethra and vagina are not connected.

If you look into DSDs and their history, you'll find that in the majority of DSDs babies are not born with with external genitalia that look ambiguous or truly resembles the opposite sex; this happens only in a tiny number of DSD conditions. You'll also find that in the past, and in some places still today, all sorts of anomalies in the appearance of male genitals that have nothing to do with DSDs and do not impair male reproductive functioning and gamete production long have been erroneously classified as "intersex" conditions. This includes having a very small penis known as a micropenis, having undescended testicles, and having a malformed male urethra that empties out the side, underside or top of the penis rather than through the tip (hypospadias and epispadias).

[–]Lyssa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, thank you much! That was really informative re several conditions! And I was not aware, that Semenya claimed that women pee out of their vaginas...

[–]vitunrotta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for this! I have copied this for personal usage in case I'll discuss this topic with anyone. Very coherently written, with good links included. :) Worry not though, I'm not going to tout this as my own writing anywhere - just a little backup for that inevitable bUt whAtAboUt CAsTerRrR argument.

[–]DarthVelma 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As MarkTwainiac noted below, Caster is an XY male with 5-ARD. He has male internal sex organs and male levels of testosterone.

[–]ZeWombat 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I encourage you to read this post from a few days ago. https://saidit.net/s/GenderCritical/comments/5dwa/caster_semenya_bio_males_in_womens_sport/

MarkTwainiac and others go into great detail on new findings and unbroadcasted findings on Semenya.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The germ of that article is about a study of the potential athletic effects that taking exogenous testosterone for a year have on female people - specifically on women who identify as men.

But of course, the Guardian made the story all about the athletic effects of endogenous testosterone on male people who "identify as women" instead.

According to the IAAF/World Athletics and the lengthy court decision released by the Court or Arbitration for Sports in June 2019, Semenya, shown in the story's lead photo, is an XY male with 5-ARD, a male-only DSD. Semenya has male levels of testosterone produced by Semenya's body naturally whereas the XX females in the study have high T because they regularly get injections of testosterone manufactured by Big Pharma companies.

Semenya has male levels of T because Semenya has fully functioning, albeit mis-located, testes that have been producing normal male levels of adult male testosterone since puberty. What's more, unlike XY persons with PAIS or CAIS, Semenya has reaped 100% of the athletic benefits of having male T levels because Semenya and other males with 5-ARD are fully sensitive to testosterone as healthy males typically are.

Similarly, all the "trans female athletes" [sic] constantly referred to in the article are males with fully intact testicles and with normal male sensitivity to T as well.

The only thing female about Semenya and all the TIMs invading female sports are their "gender identities" and ID documents.

This one-minute clip from the Guardian portrays Semenya and Semenya's attitude in a tad more honest light:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/video/2019/aug/14/i-have-high-testosterone-so-what-says-caster-semenya-video

[–]sisterinsomnia 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This manuscript (https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0226/v1) is not about giving someone testosterone but about the fact that giving a male person estrogen for a year or so will not have much effect on the advantages of having experienced puberty in a male body which produces lots of testosterone.

So not directly relevant, but wanted to get that new manuscript more publicity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for posting that. I'm a huge Emma Hilton fan.

[–]PassionateIntensity 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No fucking shit. Does no one remember the East German Olympic scandal?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Are they trying to medically force PCOS now?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

The women in the Karolinska study are all trans-identified, so they took the testosterone willingly as part of their medical transition.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Not force as in -hold you down and do the thing- force, but force as in make a potential change in their bodies by increasing circulating androgen levels and possibly stoking up the PCOS storm. Kind of like how some medications can force drug-induced Lupus. I still don't know if I'm being clear or not, I struggle sometimes making others understand how I get to my conclusions.

[–]MarkTwainiac 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The effects of taking injections on exogenous T manufactured by Big Pharma on women's bodies are not well-studied, but what is known is that there are many negative health effects, a lot of them irreversible. But I don't think it's helpful to compare what TIFs are doing out of choice (albeit often poorly-informed and considered choice) to their previously healthy bodies to what women with PCOS go through because of medical condition.

A woman who brings her T up to male levels by taking exogenous, factory-made testosterone by injections is very different to a woman who has elevated female levels of endogenous T produced by her own ovaries due to PCOS. What's more, likening the two situations suggests that women with PCOS - eg women with "hypoandrogenism" - have male levels of T. When the fact is, women with PCOS with the highest levels of T associated with the condition - eg the most "hyperandrogenic" women - still have natural T levels in the high female range, and the tippy-top of the high female range for naturally-produced testosterone comes nowhere near the bottom-most male levels. Not even close.

In any event, I don't think any TIFs who take T are trying to mimic PCOS, or to trigger it. TIFs want to become like men; their aim is to deny, override and escape their female biology and its implications. The ideal bodies that TIFs desire and seek to create by taking massive amounts of T via artificial means are a far, far cry from the bodies of women who have elevated female levels of T due to the female-only health condition known as PCOS. Since PCOS by definition stems from having female gonads, and the condition has the word ovary in its very name, PCOS is an inherently female condition - and the female condition is what TIFS are trying to identify out of.

Of course, TIFs are the ones who could say for certain whether they are trying to emulate having PCOS; I'm just surmising. But discussing this with them might be difficult because the TIFs I've met in person and have come across and interacted with online generally can't tolerate acknowledgment that they have female organs such as ovaries cuz they say it makes them "dysphoric." In fact, many seem unable to tolerate hearing or seeing anyone else make any reference to female biology and biological processes using traditional terminology and symbols without wanting to shut the convo down or at least impose new "gender neutral," female-erasing lingo like front hole, pregnant people and chest-feeding.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ok, I have misunderstood many things here and re-read the article again. What I should have done is immediately try to find the full medical study outside of that Guardian article. I was wondering what the hell you were talking about when you said that the study was for ftm, and lo and behold the light flickered on.

Looking at the article, it has chosen bits and pieces from the study to cite but it's extremely unclear that the study is on women who are transitioning.

"In the study, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, 48 healthy 18- to 35-year-old women were randomly assigned to 10 weeks of daily treatment with 10mg of testosterone cream or 10mg of a placebo.

The scientists tested the hormone’s impact on aerobic performance measured by how long the women could run on a treadmill before reaching the point of exhaustion, and leg power, muscle strength and lean muscle mass."

I've taken test before due to testosterone deficiency, and while I understand the effects for the most part I wasn't aware of the specific dosages and the expected increase of test levels. Basically I was reading this as women who are being studied for their performance level increases with testosterone supplementation (not full on transition). Sorry for the goof up there.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

It's the Guardian that made things unclear, so you did not misunderstand or goof up!

In fact, now that I too have looked again and gone to the original source, it turns out I am the one who goofed up about which study that Guardian article was referring. So if anyone owes apologies, it's me! I'll try to explain:

The report of the 10-week results published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in October 2019 that the Guardian story focuses on is one of a group of studies in the same area of inquiry that researchers at the Karolinska Institut in Sweden have been conducting over the past several years - and as it turns out, I mistook the study vaguely referenced in that Guardian article for another study on much the same topic.

In work officially published in 2020, but released on a preliminary basis in late 2019, the Karolinska researchers compared the effects of taking transition-hormone treatments over the course of a year on two groups of people: TIMs brand-new to hormone treatments, and TIFs brand-new to hormone treatments. Both groups were put on the standard protocols of transgender medicine. Meaning, the TIMs were put on T-suppressants and cross-sex (female) hormones, and the TIFs were put on testosterone at doses high enough to get their circulating testosterone into the male range (which usually involves high dose injections).

This paper - "Muscle Strength, Size, and Composition Following 12 Months of Gender-affirming Treatment in Transgender Individuals" - was published in the March 2020 issue of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, although at the time it was submitted to that journal and sent out for peer review last fall, it was made available in its original form online (on PLoS, I think).

What this paper showed is that after a year of "gender affirming" hormone treatments, TIFs gained "robust" amounts of muscle and strength, but TIMs did not lose muscle and strength at similarly significant rates. TIMs hardly lost muscle and strength at all, in fact. Here's the paper in full:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/3/e805/5651219

Since the Guardian did not specify which paper from the Karolinska they were talking about, when I saw the article in the OP was dated last fall I mistakenly assumed it was part of the Karolinska study comparing TIMs and TIFs - because that's the paper that got so much attention and has such huge significance for women's sports.

But now that I've gone and looked at the British Journal of Sports Medicine, I see that the paper the Guardian was talking about is an entirely different one called "Effects of moderately increased testosterone concentration on physical performance in young women: a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled study."

Unlike the other paper I confused it with, in this study the women were given T cream not shots; the study apparently did not continue past the 10 weeks; and during that time the women in the study who were put on T supplementation saw their T levels increased "from 0.9 (0.4) nmol/L to 4.3 (2.8) nmol/L" - which is nowhere near the male range for T, but - I think - is in the range of many women with PCOS.

As I cannot access the entire paper without paying a hefty fee, I can't tell what the aim of the study was, nor can I tell where the study participants stand in terms of their gender identity. It could be as you suggested that the researchers were indeed trying to mimic PCOS. And it could be all, some or none of the study participants had cross-sex gender identities - or any gender identities at all.

But it seems several of the assumptions on which I based my initial response to your comment were entirely in error. For that I sincerely apologize. I try to be very careful in my reading and writing, and usually am fairly good at it, but I'm definitely the one who goofed up here! Of course, it the Guardian had been clearer, we both would've saved a lot of time.

The abstract for the study cited in the Guardian article in the OP:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/105/3/e805/5651219

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Pfft, we can just blame The Guardian, they'll never know. Plus, we all learned about the other study in the process.

Thank you for the clarification on the article and study, and for posting a link for the abstract!

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, we did learn. Amazing, innit, that we posters on this social media site have higher standards for fact-checking - and admitting our mistakes - than any reputable journalistic outfit these days, be the the Guardian, the NY TIMs [sic] or WaPo.

Thank you in turn for the cordial exchange. Now I am really curious about what the motivation was for doing the 10-week study of the effects of moderate T supplementation in females, and for participating in it. Shocking how blithe people are about taking cross-sex hormones these days. So many young TIFs - and an increasing number of non-binary females - now talk about taking T like it's aspirin, thinking wishfully that it will bring only the effects they desire, without any of the drawbacks and longterm health risks.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Thanks to you as well, it's always a pleasure. I always appreciate extra citation material (and there's much that I don't understand, but I have a love affair with medical research).

I would be willing to bet that so much of what's reported to us as news is just simply someone skimming information and shitting out whatever they can on a deadline to get paid. It concerns me a little as to how much it can spread into popular medical journalism.

As far as recreational test goes, it's possible that it's being pushed with all the fancy snake oil phrasings to normalize it- like you were saying, aspirin. I was reading about TIFs the other day in a comparison between them, perimenopausal and menopausal women. High T treatment over time completely depletes glycogen stores in the vaginal epithelium and makes the walls thin as fuck. It leaves it at risk for damage and screws up the vaginal flora. Are yeast and BV common for Transmen? https://www.nature.com/articles/ijir20139 Anyhow, I digressed a bit there.

[–]MarkTwainiac 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dunno if yeast and BV are common for TIFs on T, but vaginal atrophy and excruciating pelvic pain after orgasm (and sometimes round the clock) certainly are: https://www.transgendertrend.com/severe-pain-orgasm-effect-testosterone-female-body/

https://youtu.be/ZhDnKSru6jE

If these relatively young(er) people had ever bothered to look at the issues with vaginal atrophy, pelvic organ prolapse, chronic UTIs, pelvic pain/neuralgia, etc that post-menopausal and especially elderly women have long experienced - and have fruitlessly sought help for over the course of many decades - due to low/lack of estrogen, their own awful experiences being on T from an early age would not be such a big surprise. But who cares about older women? Women who've lived 60, 70, 80+ years in female bodies - what could they possibly know?