All boxers, including Algeria’s Imane Khelif, who won Olympic gold last summer amid scrutiny over a disputed failed gender eligibility test conducted by a different body, will be unable to compete without a test which reveals their biological sex.

  • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m honestly confused about what you’re asserting here. For my daughter, they did a blood test on my wife in order to tell us that we’re having a daughter instead of a son. Doesn’t that mean that there IS in fact a genetic test that “reveals biological sex”?

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      So there’s a relatively miniscule fraction of people who have unexpected outcomes that you wouldn’t expect based on their genetics, e.g due to some unexpected hormonal activity during fetal development.

      For almost every birth, the biological concept of sex is a straightforward conclusion from genetics, so, by and large, a genetic test is accurate. But there have been cases that never got genetic tests and from all assessments were biologically female, but find out later they had XY. Maybe because they never hit puberty, or while trying to diagnose infertility, but something drove a deeper look.

      • Dunning Kruger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        FYI, Intersex people (those born with nonbinary sex characteristics such as sexual anatomy, reproductive organs, hormonal patterns and/or chromosomal patterns) are approximately 1.7% of the general population.

        By comparison, red hair occurs at similar rates, and accounts for between 1 - 2% of the general population.

        When you consider how many people with red hair you may have met in your life, on average, you have also met a similar number of intersex people, whether you knew it at the time or not.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          The 1.7% figure is generally considered inaccurate, with most of that 1.7% being anomolous, but not out-right counter to the genotypic sex. LOCAH can cause infertility/reduced menstrual cycles as well as excessive body hair or balding in women, but wouldn’t generally be considered phenotypically male. The second biggest one is a male having their urethra open in the wrong spot, which while anomolous, is certainly not going to make someone think they should be considered to be sexed female just because their penis has the hole in the wrong place.

          The syndromes more like one would expect, like AIS, amounts to somewhere around 0.02% to 0.05%.

          • Dunning Kruger@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I appreciate you sharing that information!

            I had learned the first piece of information from a professional training led by a recognized expert on sex and gender diversity. It sounds like you are also well-informed on the topic, though, and I am always interested in learning more.

            I hope we can agree in our discussion that these distinctions are regarding traits and experiences which, as you said, are “…going to make someone think they should be considered to be sexed…” in a particular way.

            What a privilege it is for me, as a cisgender person, to discuss the philosophy of the sexual classification of other people; and to air my thoughts publicly about how other people should understand their own bodies, or be allowed to participate in their own lives.

            • jj4211@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 hours ago

              That was pretty much from Wikipedia, so I’m not innately that aware, just felt like reading the article and summarizing.

              When it comes to sports and gender, it seems kind of weird to me that foe the most part we only care about that one biological distinction as a discriminating factor when there’s so many other biological advantages/disadvantages in play.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        That “relatively miniscule fraction” is over-represented in sports, as the hormonal edge cases of humanity can end up being stronger/faster/bigger than the typical humans.

        • TheBeege@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          Possibly true, but it would be good to have a source for that.

          But even if true, what genetic factors should and shouldn’t count? If someone is clearly female to all observers but happens to have XY genes, how is that different from an XX female who has an abnormally high amount of testosterone but still appears female for all intents and purposes?

          I’m basically saying it’s a complicated problem that laymen like us without specialized knowledge should consider very carefully and possibly defer to experts’ opinions.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            Well frankly, there’s a whole can of worms to be had about how people should be categorized. A different league for distinct height ranges? Different leagues based on ACTN3? There’s a whole bunch of uneven biological factors that competitors had no control over, should gender be the only one so broadly recognized?

    • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Looks like it’s time to pull out the chart again…

      Source.

      The test is for the SRY gene, which may not be active on a Y gene, among other things. There are 2 or 3 points on that chart that are relevant to your question.