
What No One Is Reporting About Caster Semenya: She Has XY Chromosomes - peter_retief
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/
======
nneonneo
Just 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.

~~~
ordinaryperson
> 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.

------
Havoc
The whole debacle is just sad. No matter what they do it's unfair to someone.

~~~
pas
Well, 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.

------
DoreenMichele
_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._

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.

~~~
Veen
I’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
Ah, 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
Perhaps 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.

~~~
DoreenMichele
That presumes they understand it.

I will make one last attempt to make my original point:

I have a homozygous recessive genetic disorder, as does my oldest son.
Genetics 101 tells me that my other son and ex husband are both carriers.

People who have the same genetic disorder or who are caring for a child with
the same genetic disorder have asked me how I know these immediate relatives
are carriers.

So my confidence that most people know anything about basic genetics is pretty
low -- even if they happen to be reporters, editors, etc.

~~~
Veen
No, I understand your point. My point is that they have a responsibility to
educate themselves or talk to subject-matter experts before they publish.
Ignorance isn’t a defence or mitigation. It’s literally their job to pick up
the phone and talk to people who understand the issues at hand before
publishing misleading articles read by millions.

~~~
DoreenMichele
Point taken.

Though writing simply doesn't pay well these days, if at all. That fact is
undermining the quality of the writing we are seeing.

Newspapers and all kinds of other writing is being squeezed financially. Ad
revenue is way down. Local papers are shutting down left and right.

Etc.

As a poverty-stricken writer myself who gets told to quit my bitching and _get
a real job,_ I'm not super sympathetic to the world's demands for good writing
that is also magically completely free.

~~~
Veen
I’m also a writer (ghostwriting mostly) so I sympathize with that view, but
not when it comes to major newspapers publishing misleading content,
especially when the “mistakes” seem coordinated to support an emotive or
political agenda.

------
rurban
One 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.

------
pjc50
Specifically, [https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-
disord...](https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disorders-of-
sexual-development)

------
cowwithbeef
>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
This 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.

~~~
pas
The NYT article seems simple, what are they leaving out? It mentions that mid-
distance running seems to be testosterone independent, yet the ruling mandates
to lower her levels.

------
viach
Isn't splitting Olympic Games by 2 (or more?) dimensions is in general a sort
of propaganda of gender inequality?

~~~
Jabbles
It 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.

~~~
pdkl95
The solution is to define the categories by the specific physical traits that
are beneficial to the competition (sort of like the weight classes used in
boxing). Gender is an indirect indicator. Instead of dividing in to [men,
women, ...(other?)...], divide by e.g, size, weight, allele, etc.

~~~
rwmj
It's an interesting idea, but what criteria would you use to group people for
running?

~~~
berbec
Personal best time at competing distance.

~~~
ordinaryperson
How would this work? Some Olympic distances are:

-Sprints (100m, 200m, 400m),

-Middle distance (800m, 1500m)

-Long distance (3000m Steeplechase, 5000m, 10,000m)

-Hurdles (110/100m, 400m)

-Relays (4x100m, 4x400m)

Men would dominate every distance, you'd have no women competing.

More cynically I'd point out that all high-level athletics are really
television shows and the audience (deservedly) wants women's sports.

To me the solution is a new intersex category.

