Initial methods used to verify the gender of female athletes involved physical inspection of the athlete’s external genitalia.
1-

To spare athletes such embarrass- ment, from the outset Olympic officials relied on the technology of medical genetics for an alternative, less invasive solution.
2-
After successful trialling of the protocol at the 1968 Winter Olympics held in Grenoble, France, all female athletes participating in the Mexico City Summer Games later that year were tested by histological (micro- scopic) inspection for the presence of a Barr body...
3-
in cells scraped from the buccal (cheek) mucosa. Although such laboratory based testing held certain advantages, there were also acknowledged limitations to the methodology.
4-
Beginning with the 1992 Albertville Winter Olympics, in an effort to further improve on the sensitivity and specificity of testing, gender verification was performed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) determination of the absence or presence of DNA sequences.....
5-
from the testes-determining gene located on the Y chromosome.

6-
Although the PCR technique was supposed to identify uniquely male DNA sequences, further investigation revealed that at least one of the DNA sequences used to prime the PCR...
7-
was in fact not specific to males, and may have contributed to an unfortu- nate number of false positive test results.

9-
Over time, it therefore became evident that laboratory based methods of determining an athlete’s sex were simply inadequate for the task at hand.
10-
The attempt to rely on genetic testing methods of sex determination had opened up a veritable Pandora’s box of problems for both athletes and officials.
11-
Not infrequently, the genetic based testing identified an athlete whose phenotype was clearly female as having an apparently male genotype.
12-
The most common of these ‘‘intersex states’’ is the condition of androgen insensitivity,12 affecting about 1 in 60 000 males.
13-
Individuals with this condition have a 46XY genotype (the typical male chromo- somal make up), but fail to develop male sex characteristics because their cells cannot respond to the circulating male hormone (testosterone) in their bodies.
14-
Although the presence of the Y chromosome makes these individuals genetically male, they are phenotypically female—that is, they have a female morphotype and physiology—and they are usually raised socially as females.
15-
The presence of the Y chromosome (and more importantly, circulating testoster- one) confers no physical advantage on them.
16-
Seven of the eight athletes with non-negative gender verification tests (performed by PCR) during the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games were determined to have the condition of androgen insensitivity and were ultimately permitted to compete in the Games.
17-
The eighth athlete was confirmed to have a less common intersex condition and was also allowed to compete.
18-
The accepted laboratory based scientific methodology of verifying an athlete’s sex during the period leading up to the Sydney Olympic Games therefore relatively frequently, but unfairly,...
19-
singled out female athletes whose genetic make up (although not ‘‘normal’’) did not provide them with an undue competitive advantage.
20-
Moreover, genetic testing alone also commonly failed to identify female athletes whose physiology would in fact give them a competitive advan- tage—for example, individuals with virilising forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia.
21-
Further complicating mat- ters, it had become painfully obvious that genetic based testing also failed to account for the psychosocial components of gender.
22-
Numerous athletes suffered tremendous psycho- logical harm from the public scrutiny that ensued following the public disclosure of abnormal test results.
23-
For these reasons, the scientific and sports medicine communities ultimately stood unanimous in their public opposition to the practice of genetic based gender verification testing.
24-
By 2000, 29 of the 34 international sports federations had abandoned routine gender verification testing.3 In some instances sports federations devised alternative strategies to solve the perceived problem of potential sex fraud.
25-
For example, in the early 1990s the IAAF replaced genetic based testing with a mandatory, comprehensive health assessment for male and female athletes alike.
26-
Interestingly, the FIVB was one of the five international sports federations that had yet to rescind their requirement for gender verification before the Sydney Games.
27-
In the 4 Summer Olympic Games and the 5 Winter Games that have transpired since that decision, there have been no published reports of attempted gender misrepresentation and,...
28-
given the media and public attention lavished on Olympic athletes in this day and age, it seems highly unlikely to occur in the future.
29-
Ironically, one additional deterrent to widespread (or even attempted) gender misrepresentation is the requirement that the athlete’s urethral meatus be visualised upon submission of a urine sample for doping control.
30-
Although clearly not meant to substitute for the crude femininity testing used decades ago, in practical terms it almost assuredly serves a similar, if unintended, role in that regard.

31-
I will address from 2009 to 2020 the @WorldAthletics disasters in a separate thread later this week.
32-32
@threadreaderapp unroll please

More from Kirsti Miller

You May Also Like

THREAD: 12 Things Everyone Should Know About IQ

1. IQ is one of the most heritable psychological traits – that is, individual differences in IQ are strongly associated with individual differences in genes (at least in fairly typical modern environments). https://t.co/3XxzW9bxLE


2. The heritability of IQ *increases* from childhood to adulthood. Meanwhile, the effect of the shared environment largely fades away. In other words, when it comes to IQ, nature becomes more important as we get older, nurture less.
https://t.co/UqtS1lpw3n


3. IQ scores have been increasing for the last century or so, a phenomenon known as the Flynn effect. https://t.co/sCZvCst3hw (N ≈ 4 million)

(Note that the Flynn effect shows that IQ isn't 100% genetic; it doesn't show that it's 100% environmental.)


4. IQ predicts many important real world outcomes.

For example, though far from perfect, IQ is the single-best predictor of job performance we have – much better than Emotional Intelligence, the Big Five, Grit, etc. https://t.co/rKUgKDAAVx https://t.co/DWbVI8QSU3


5. Higher IQ is associated with a lower risk of death from most causes, including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, most forms of cancer, homicide, suicide, and accident. https://t.co/PJjGNyeQRA (N = 728,160)
And here they are...

THE WINNERS OF THE 24 HOUR STARTUP CHALLENGE

Remember, this money is just fun. If you launched a product (or even attempted a launch) - you did something worth MUCH more than $1,000.

#24hrstartup

The winners 👇

#10

Lattes For Change - Skip a latte and save a life.

https://t.co/M75RAirZzs

@frantzfries built a platform where you can see how skipping your morning latte could do for the world.

A great product for a great cause.

Congrats Chris on winning $250!


#9

Instaland - Create amazing landing pages for your followers.

https://t.co/5KkveJTAsy

A team project! @bpmct and @BaileyPumfleet built a tool for social media influencers to create simple "swipe up" landing pages for followers.

Really impressive for 24 hours. Congrats!


#8

SayHenlo - Chat without distractions

https://t.co/og0B7gmkW6

Built by @DaltonEdwards, it's a platform for combatting conversation overload. This product was also coded exclusively from an iPad 😲

Dalton is a beast. I'm so excited he placed in the top 10.


#7

CoderStory - Learn to code from developers across the globe!

https://t.co/86Ay6nF4AY

Built by @jesswallaceuk, the project is focused on highlighting the experience of developers and people learning to code.

I wish this existed when I learned to code! Congrats on $250!!
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.