There is strong evidence that two 5ARD males participated in the Olympics in women’s boxing – and both won gold medals in their respective weight classes. In an article in The Atlantic, Helen Lewis provides an excellent summary of the biology of the 5ARD condition:
Although genetically male, people with the condition lack a crucial enzyme, 5-alpha reductase, which means that as fetuses, their bodies cannot process a masculinizing hormone called DHT, which helps determine how the reproductive system develops. They are therefore born with internal testes but external female genitalia—and thus many are raised as girls. At puberty, their internal testes start to produce a different masculinizing hormone, testosterone, which their bodies are able to metabolize. And so they develop typically male muscle mass and proportions, and their genitalia take on a more male appearance. At this point, some people with 5ARD feel more comfortable identifying as men rather than as women.
With 5ARD, a child can be registered as female at birth, but later develop a significant athletic advantage during puberty from the effects of testosterone ... many people with 5ARD have no idea of their condition until adolescence, when they are forced to reassess their identity at a profound level.
The IOC (International Olympic Committee) permitted the two boxers to participate in women’s boxing because, in each case, their passports indicted that their sex was “female”.
It’s important to note that the two boxers are NOT transgender and have never lived as males, and it is clear that there is a lot of support for the IOC’s decision, even from people who do not think MtoF transgender individuals should be permitted to participate in elite women’s sports.
Comments
Those who support permitting 5ARD males to participate in women’s sports, but who are opposed to participation by transgender females, are basically arguing that the women’s category should be open to, and limited to, those who have lived their whole lives as females (whether they are BIOLOGICALLY female or not). That is not an irrational or incoherent view to hold – but I also think it is misguided (as I argue below).
The IOC’s position IS incoherent, (in the sense that it is inconsistent with other rules that are applied to women’s sports) and illogical. If this “rule” (that if an individual’s passport indicates that they are female then they can participate in women’s events) were to be applied broadly, it would mean that transgender women could participate, as long as the country issuing their passport was willing to give them a “female” designation on their passport, regardless of their hormone levels (or anything else). H’mm. Who thinks that some countries would be more likely to provide that designation than others, especially when Olympics glory is a stake? In fact – if “passport designation” were to become the SOLE criterion for eligibility to participate in women’s sports, then it would become possible for women to take testosterone and still be eligible, and even if that were to continue to be banned, it would still mean that biological males from some countries would be able to compete against biological women in elite women’s sports.. The abuses would be rampant, and the price (as always) would be paid by the biological women who deserve to be able to compete under fair “limited to biological women” conditions.
A more fundamental problem with ANY arguments for permitting 5ARD males to participate in women’s sports is that the arguments are not consistent with the basic reason why there is a separate “women’s” category to begin with.
The reason why women have their own participation category in most sports is to protect women from having to compete against those who have a biologically-based male advantage in athletic performance. Most of the male advantage in athletics is a consequence of sex-related differences in testosterone levels. Male and female pubertal development occurs under the influence of dramatically different, and non-overlapping, levels of testosterone. Adult males and females also have dramatically different, and non-overlapping, levels of testosterone. Both of these sex-related differences in testosterone levels contribute to the male advantage in athletics, such that even if an adult with male levels of testosterone takes medication to reduce testosterone levels, the pubertal effects remain.
In contrast, whether or not an individual IDENTIFIES as male vs female, and whether or not members of an individual’s family and community BELIEVE an individual to be male vs female, are not significant contributors to the male advantage in athletics. Similarly, the details of an individual’s genitalia – while obviously playing a very significant role in initial judgments about an individual’s sex at birth – have no direct role to play in producing the male advantage in athletics.
Accordingly, 5ARD individuals develop as males in all ways relevant to producing the male advantage in athletics, while the features of their biology and their social experiences that are atypical for males are not factors that contribute in any significant way to explaining and producing the male advantage in athletics.
When considering whether or not 5-ARD individuals have a biological-male-based advantage in athletics, it is also worth noting that the condition is quite rare (with an estimated incidence of about 1 in 4000 to 5000 births). Given the rarity of the condition, if 5-ARD individuals did not have a very dramatic biological advantage when competing in women’s sports, it would be vanishingly unlikely that two such individuals would have won gold medals in women’s boxing. The fact that they did, and that the sport (boxing) was one where the male biological advantage is particularly pronounced (males have, on average, MUCH stronger punching power than do females) is not coincidental; they won their gold medals in part because of their male biological advantage.
It may be true that the two boxers in this year’s Olympics believe themselves to be females, and it may be the case that their genitalia appear more similar to that of most females than most males. However, with regard to the factors responsible for the male advantage in athletics – male levels of testosterone during pubertal development and male levels of testosterone during adulthood -- the two boxers benefitted from the male advantage in athletics, and for that reason they should not have been permitted to participate in WOMEN’S boxing at the Olympics.
I can certainly understand that a decision that they were not eligible to compete in women’s boxing would have been emotionally painful for the two individuals, but as I discussed in my previous posting (about transgender women in women’s sports), the purpose of eligibility rules is not to open up women’s sports to anyone who would feel badly about being excluded. One should also not forget that had these two boxers not been considered eligible to participate in women’s boxing, the two silver medalists in their weight divisions would have won gold, and the two fourth-place finishers would have achieved their dreams of winning an Olympic medal instead of going home without one, and other women from the two boxers’ countries would have qualified for the Olympics. The IOC made a serious error in judgment in prioritizing the feelings and desires of these two individuals over the feelings of other women boxers and over the importance of protecting the integrity of women’s sports more generally.
These 5-ARD cases should not be competing against women. Even though it’s rare it gives such a strength advantage they tend to show up in elite sports. Caster Semenya is a known 5-ARD case.
But only genetic testing will find them. Good luck mandating that in the current climate.