8 ms·
What No One Is Reporting About Caster Semenya: She Has XY Chromosomes
- mathfailure 7y agotl;dr: it's right in the title: "she" turned out to be a "he". who_would_have_thought.jpg
- swampthinker 7y agoNo, the article very explicitly states that she is intersex. She has both female and male features.
- stevenjohns 7y agoGender isn't the same as sex, and this is probably the best example of it. This person is intersex. They do not fall into the binary world that you're trying to push.
- czechdeveloper 7y agoFor me it's difficult to comprehend this, as my native language just does not have 2 words for it.
- marton78 7y agoI think few languages have these two words. German, for example just uses "gender" as a recent loanword for the social construct and keeps using the traditional word "Geschlecht" for biological sex.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIf it makes you feel any better, plenty of native English speakers find it difficult to understand or outright deny it.
- mundacho 7y agoGenetically speaking it seems that it is binary world, either you're XX or you're XY. Or at least that is what I understood from the article. Is there another combination I'm not aware of?
- speedplane 7y agoIt's not just genetics.
- garmaine 7y agoYes, many. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115545/
- Veen 7y agoBut genetically non-binary individuals make up a tiny proportion of the population. To a first approximation, there are two genetic sexes and saying so is a reasonable generalization, even though there are edge cases like Semenya that should be dealt with sensitively.
- garmaine 7y agoIn aggregate, they make up about ~1% of the population. That’s rare, but common enough that you probably know a few. It is far more common than was once thought because of the prevalence now of genetic testing. Before XXX or XXY would have gone undiagnosed, for example.
- lordlimecat 7y agoFrom one of the article's sources on "1.7%": > Specifically, Fausto-Sterling computes the incidence of intersexual births to be 1.7 per 100 live births, or 1.7%. To arrive at that figure, she defines as intersex any “individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels” So someone with elevated estrogen but normally functioning male genitalia and XY chromosomes would be part of this 1.7%, as might an effeminate looking man or a boyish female. I rather suspect that is not what most people would assume when reading that number.
- Arbalest 7y agoThe article does make point that the biology isn't that clear. Yes, much of her physiology is more male than it would typically be, but her external characteristics aren't male. so summarising that "she" is a "he" is a gross oversimplification of exceptional circumstances.
- TheAdamAndChe 7y agoPerhaps, but having male genetics and some characteristics of both sexes makes her intersex[1]. She was assigned the female gender, but she still has genetics and hormone levels that are not cis female. Hormones strongly affect some forms of physical performance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex?wprov=sfla1
- DanBC 7y ago> She chose the female gender, She was assigned female at birth.
- TheAdamAndChe 7y agoThanks, I have corrected my comment.
- Havoc 7y agoThe whole debacle is just sad. No matter what they do it's unfair to someone.
- NotPaidToPost 7y agoExcluding someone is not necessarily unfair to anyone, including the person excluded.
- pas 7y agoWell, life is "unfair" (see the just world fallacy). Of course we can try to find the most fair solution and then call that fair. Fairness is not absolute, the intent, effort, consideration (of past effects, and possible and likely outcomes) matters. Sometimes making a race more interesting is more important, than allowing someone to dominate it for decades. However, that sounds like a pretty serious difference in rules. But. But we should consider that we already have a lot of complex rules (doping rules are not completely fair either, because biology is complex), and similarly the problem of how to separate males and females for competitions is not new, and never was simple.
- sonnyblarney 7y agoNot 'unfair' just 'unfortunate'.
- viach 7y agoIsn't splitting Olympic Games by 2 (or more?) dimensions is in general a sort of propaganda of gender inequality?
- Arbalest 7y agoThat's like saying that, your child gets to go to a public school, just like a rich child. The rich child just happens to be able to afford a private school.
- viach 7y agoRich/Poor are not genetic qualities. It's more like saying girls and boys go to different schools, because they have different abilities to learn. Which is obviously not true in learning and, as it turns out, in sport.
- Arbalest 7y agoThey're not genetic but they still follow parental lineage. I'm making the point that advantages that people start out with are already not equal, that equality can't be simplified so much that you can just say, they have the same opportunities and that's enough.
- polote 7y ago> So going back to the premise that women’s sport is the PROTECTED category, and that this protection must exist because of the insurmountable and powerful effects of testosterone, my opinion on this is that it is fair and correct to set an upper limit for that testosterone They use the "protected category" expression in the article
- Jabbles 7y agoIt isn't propaganda to acknowledge that elite male athletes are better than elite female athletes, for any reasonable definition of better. Therefore, if we want any women participation in the Olympics, we have to have more than one category.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIt’s absolutely mind-boggling that virtually every major outlet in the world reporting the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling yesterday has failed to mention one of the most important facts of the entire case. Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes. Not really. Genetics is generally a poorly understood subject. Even in online discussion groups for people with genetic disorders, basic information about genetics is often not well understood by many of the members, even though almost all will be there because either they or an immediate family member has a genetic disorder.
- darawk 7y agoIt may be that the issue is complex, but the fact that she has XY chromsomes is definitely a salient fact. There are basically two defining characteristics of masculinity at a biological level: XY chromosomes and testosterone. She has XY chromosomes and elevated testosterone. It certainly may be that there is additional nuance yet to be revealed, but to not report on one of these facts is unbelievably dishonest.
- Veen 7y agoI’m not sure leaving out relevant details because they are poorly understood is good journalistic practice, especially when those details are central to what’s being discussed. It would only take a paragraph to clarify what XX, XY, and intersex means. It’s exactly what the writer of the linked article did.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoAh, I see the misunderstanding. You think I meant they did it on purpose to pander to an uneducated audience. Au contraire. I'm saying the reporters probably didn't really get it.
- Veen 7y agoPerhaps Hanlon’s Razor is the right approach to judging the way this is handled in much of the media. You might be right, in which case the responsibility is on the editors and fact checkers at those newspapers to ensure that reporters don’t make such mistakes.
- qazpot 7y agoCaster Semenya is a guy competing in Women's sport so that he can win medals and accolades much more easily than competing in Men's sport. People like Caster Semenya will end up destroying Women sports. [EDIT]: To the people downvoting, care to explain why Caster Semenya does not compete in Men sports instead of Women.
- cowwithbeef 7y ago>It’s absolutely mind-boggling that virtually every major outlet in the world reporting the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling yesterday has failed to mention one of the most important facts of the entire case. Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes. This is a minefield of an offensive topic, but I will give it a shot. Each outlet has a narrative that all stories support. "Right wing" outlets like Breitbart run the narrative that women are being pushed out of their own sports organizations by (insert polite term for all of the recent expansions to the definition of women here.) Most others run the narrative that this expanding definition has no negative consequences and we all accept it with jubilation. Reporting the XY chromosome detail could cause some readers to support the opposing narrative.
- sonnyblarney 7y agoThis is the obvious reality that people still have a hard time processing: "My opponents news is obviously biased, but my own is not" There's a massive intersectional narrative at stake whereupon reality can be bent if need be in this case. My original encounter with this story was the IOC's decision to allow Caster to compete: the NYT had a story supporting it, I thought it was enlightening. Until my bias radar went off and I did further research and found 'the most relevant facts' changed the story quite dramatically. The NYT left out the fact she was intersex / hermaphrodite entirely! So why would even the NYT leave out such critical information? Google 'caster semeny new york times' for the latest headlines. Among them you'll find 'The Myth of Testosterone' - trying to convince us that we really don't have any advantage due to testosterone! It's interesting but ultimately maligned, so one must wonder why they'd take up such a position that should undermine their credibility? The issue is identity: reality seems to be less important than people's right to choose their own expression, which is a current 'rights' issue ... and so the truth gets utterly muddled. It's one thing when it has no consequence, it's another thing altogether when power/rights are bestowed due to it. We're tricked with language: 'women' to most has biological implications, though we recognized not always. But when headlines such as this appear (in Quartz): "The demonization of Caster Semenya’s womanhood is part of a dark history in female athletics" And this classic from Vox: "I am a woman and I am fast: what Caster Semenya’s story says about gender and race in sports The constant scrutiny into the runner’s medical history reveals what happens to women who don’t conform to stereotypes." I think this headline really summarized the root of misinformation: Caster is a woman by choice. She could have ostensibly chosen the male identity. She has utterly fundamental biological differences that are material in sport. Which in her life, is her business of course; but in sport, it becomes another issue. So when they refer to her as 'female' and then reference the antagonism to her, it's a terrible straw-man. Caster is not just a woman who 'doesn't conform to stereotypes'. Having male sex apparatus, XY chromosomes, and the testosterone of a male athlete which endows her with considerable and obvious advantage ... is not a 'stereotype'. Effectively, a false parallel is drawn between trans people under scrutiny for 'non conforming identity' issues, into Caster's situation, where there are material differences to be addressed. It's an information war unfortunately.
- pjc50 7y agoSpecifically, https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disorders-of-sexual-development https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disord...
- nneonneo 7y agoJust having XY chromosomes is not enough to actually make someone a male, despite the insinuations of this (rather biased) article. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS), for example, results when the body's cells do not respond at all to testosterone. A person with CAIS develops as a female (albeit sterile), no matter how much testosterone they have. The exact nature of Caster's biology have not been publicly disclosed, but it's clear that it's not enough to simply say she's an XY female. Because of this, the properly cautious approach (which most news organizations have adopted) is to avoid saying anything about her actual biological condition. This article is unnecessarily inflammatory, and insinuates pretty strongly that the mere presence of Y chromosomes should subject Caster to scrutiny; the reality is likely a lot more nuanced.
- peter_retief 7y agoCAIS is not relevant in this case. XY chromosomes does not make an athlete male but having testis might well. It is a dilemma and the reality is a lot more nuanced as you say
- ordinaryperson 7y ago> but it's clear that it's not enough to simply say she's an XY female. The article explicitly states several times Caster Semenya is not male or female but intersex female with male characteristics -- no womb, ovaries but internal testes. > insinuates pretty strongly that the mere presence of Y chromosomes should subject Caster to scrutiny The article praises Caster and does not "insinuate" she should be subjected to elevated scrutiny, it instead singles out reporters for over-simplifying the situation and omitting important biological facts; it insinuates reporters are taking a social justice angle (woman with high levels of testosterone not allowed to compete) when Caster is more appropriately described as intersex, and unfortunately the Olympics do not have an intersex category. It's not critical of Caster at all and struck me as a balanced, well-written take.
- rurban 7y agoOne should really dig the fact that she is legally a female, maybe to the appearances of her outer sex organs, and in sports classified as male, due to her having testicles, XY chromosomes and therefore too much testosteron. What she choose as legal gender should not care much, as nowadays it's much easier to choose that. Good so. What is more important to her is what the sports classification panel put her in, because that's what's her income is. She can easily run in men competitions, no one forbids that. Letting her run with women was unfair to all other women. And you cannot compare that to the former hormone-doped women (e.g. the former east european runners). They had no testicles and no XY chromosomes.