Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Steersman's avatar

> Alistair: “Since Khelif and Lin were disqualified based on blood tests, it is fair to assume that they fall into the category of having XY chromosomes and a DSD.”

Evolutionary biologist Emma Hilton has been arguing, on some evidence, that the DSD Khelif has is probably 5-ARD:

https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1819402288789590246

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%CE%B1-Reductase_2_deficiency

Of note, Hilton says: “But the baby lacks a protein needed to make a penis grow. This means that baby’s external genitals can develop as female-looking. Hence, baby might be registered at birth as female.”

Hilton seems a going concern of late – some extra links to her recent commentary here: https://karadansky.substack.com/p/ffs-friday-developmental-biologist

But that “registered at birth as female” based on the “baby’s external genitals” is probably the basis for the IOC accepting that Khelif qualifies for women’s boxing. Which, of course, conflicts with the XX/XY criteria of the IBA.

For instance, you say: “None of those facts matter in terms of Khelif’s physical abilities except the first one, ‘was born female’, which Khelif’s blood tests showed is not true.”

But it is neither “external genitals” nor karyotype that are, according to standard biological definitions for the sexes, what qualifies anyone – any organism for that matter – as male or female. Those definitions STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither – like most intersex and probably like Khelif – are then, ipso facto, sexless:

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1

https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)

Complex issue and I sure don’t have a solid handle on all of the different DSDs. But there seems to be several different variations of DSDs with female phenotypes – i.e., genitalia, particularly though not exclusively at birth – and male genotypes – i.e., XY karyotypes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Physical

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis

From the description of some photos in the first case (CAIS):

Wikipedia (CAIS): “Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype.”

Most seem infertile – probably like Khelif – and are then, by those strict biological definitions, qualified as sexless. But not all of them as you yourself pointed out:

> Alistair: “A person with 46XY DSD has even given birth to daughter (who had the same condition) ….”

From the NCBI article: "Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. .... A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/

She clearly had the “functional ovaries” that are the sine qua non for “female”, although the IBA – and many others – would probably call her a “male”.

So, bottom line, most DSDs of the “XY female” variety are then sexless – infertile, incapable of producing either sperm or ova – while some might actually qualify as either male or female. But I think that emphasizes the benefits of those standard biological definitions.

You may wish to take a gander at my longer essay that provides some justification for those biological definitions, particularly as it is based, in turn, on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts