Slashdot Mirror
How To Prove Someone Is Female?
krou writes "Caster Semenya won the 800m at the World Athletics Championship in blistering style, leaving her competitors in the dust, but she has been thrown into the midst of a scandal amidst claims that she's not really a woman. According to the many press reports, she's believed to shave, is flat chested, has a very masculine physique, previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing. Questions about her gender have dogged her entire career. Previously, acceptance that she is a women relied on simple inspection of female genitals. But now the IAAF claim that they want to conduct further tests to see if 'she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' An IAAF spokesmen noted that 'The [testing] process was started after Semenya made her startling breakthroughs — a 25-second improvement at 1500m and eight seconds at 800m, just some weeks ago.' I'm curious what the Slashdot community thinks: what can be considered proof of someone being male or female? Is it simply a case of having the right genitals, or are there other criteria that should be used? Is the IAAF right in claiming that someone should be prevented from competing because they have a rare medical or genetic advantage?"
... and see how it pans out.
To test if someone is female or not, just ask them to go out with a geek. If she says yes, then she can't be a female.
I doubt most people here would have experience with that.
(sorry, just a bad joke.)
Just a dude. Stuck in IT.
I would think that a genetic test would prove whether or not she was.. well... a she.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
As subject says. If there is a "Y" cromosome, well, you have a male then...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
"she may have a rare medical condition that gives her an unfair advantage.' "
What kind of bullshit is this? Your genetics are 80% of the winning. Personally, I was born with messed up feet so I have always known that I wouldn't be the sprinting world champion. The fact that this woman(because that's what she is) has the better genetic profile to win these kinds of races is to her advantage and the people who didn't win are to accept that or play another game.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
Everyone competing in IAAF competitions should be fat, lazy, nonathletic, slobs. Otherwise its unfair to all the fat, lazy, nonathletic slobs who just cant compete.
One reason I would never hope to be rich and in the spot light is stuff like this. Ask Richard Gere how long shit like this can follow you. If it its true it is a pretty personal outting.
As a general rule, if you can't tell what she is, then run.
If you can make love to her, then she is a woman (provided that you know where you put your willy in)...
... or, if she uses the term "make love" for the act, she is a woman.
Save your wrists today - switch to Dvorak
If you ever posted here, you know you are not a REAL female. You may even look like one, but you know, deep inside, you have big question mark lingering. Don't you!
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Kick them in the nuts really hard. If they don't fold over in pain and whimper an octave higher, they're female.
Table-ized A.I.
I think slashdot should start with the correct definitions, being a technical community and all: Sex is, Gender does. Second, Slashdot of all places should know that the two are correlations, not causations. And lastly, I'd like to believe that as a community that espouses scientific values and intelligent discourse, the answer should be obvious:
You can't.
Life is full of delicious ambiguity, and people assume that two polar opposites (male and female) have nothing in between. But life isn't like that. Life is a spectrum, and any place we draw the line is arbitrary -- not natural. Nature has its own laws, which are not the laws of men.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
just ask "asl?"
Most people have an okay time with "male" and "female" as unproblematic concepts, because for the majority of people all the things that might go into the concepts correlate at least reasonably well. Most females are genetically XX, and have both primary and secondary sexual characteristics typical of females. Most males are XY, and have primary/secondary characteristics typical of males.
If those things aren't all correlated nicely, though, it makes clear that there isn't really a solid definition that covers all aspects of what we mean. A genetic test for XX vs. XY? (And then what do you do about XXY?) Just an issue of primary sexual traits? (Do secondary sexual traits matter?) A combination of all the above? (And then what do you do if they don't all match up?)
At some point the distinctions become somewhat arbitrary, and to me at least not all that interesting: there isn't actually any magical "right" answer to the question. Perhaps to get an answer that makes sense in this context we might first answer: what is the purpose of having separate male/female sporting competitions, and which definition of sex or gender would contribute towards that purpose best?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Question:
Have you gained weight?
Answers:
Yeah, I should hit the gym. - Male
Whaaa... you don't love me anymore! - Female
Driving test.
Considering that there are plenty of creatures which can be hermaphrodites, and that there are rare genetic variations (YXYY, for example) where one is born with e.g. male characteristics while the sexual organs may be female, this is a difficult point. Where do you draw the line? I know of a few lesbians who, except for the chest, could easily pass for male: large arms and hands, low voice, etc.
The sexual differences are fairly pronounced for "normal" men and women, but there are plenty of in-betweens. Methinks the only thing they can do is make an extensive study of all the differences between men and women, and say that if more than an x number of variables lean towards the one or the other, the person in question must be considered as being of the opposite sex. Either that, or you have to create the Hermaphrodite Olympics. They'll probably still have to investigate each case separately either way.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
I disagree. Her ability to run was what got this whole discussion started in the first place :P
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it well worth the effort.
Considering that there are plenty of creatures which can be hermaphrodites
We aren't talking about clown fish here. That would be a red herring. (Sorry couldn't resist the pun.)
there are rare genetic variations ... this is a difficult point. Where do you draw the line?
An interesting question, but probably not relevant to this particular case. We know we want to draw the line between XX and XY. Test her. If she is XX, then female. If XY, then male. It only needs to be an issue if she turns up as XXY or XYY something else.
I watched the women's 1500m race today and saw not one woman who wasn't flat chested or nearly so.
I believe (from Mary Decker Slayne) that this is typical of women who train hard and as this young lass is just now 18 it would make sense that her hormonal changes were or are going to happen latter.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I really hate this idea that people with any kind of advantage aren't allowed to participate in athletic competitions. What's the point, then? How far should we take it? Next thing you know, people will be rejected for the "unfair advantage" of simply having spent their life training for the event. (This actually already happens in the olympics to some extent with their ban on "professional" athletes in events like basketball).
Our "world records" are quite meaningless when the individuals with the greatest chance of actually setting one aren't allowed on the field. I also think it's inappropriate to ban athletes that have subjected themselves to chemical augmentation. I would suggest keeping separate "augmented" and "non-augmented" records, but ultimately it's impossible to determine where to draw the line between augmentation and things like tailored dietary supplements. But our records are a joke. We have no idea who the fastest human runner on the planet is, because he's not allowed to officially compete.
Cases like this also illustrate the ridiculousness of gender segregation in athletics. Does anyone with a basic science education actually still believe that there are only two genders? Should we have yet another segregated league for XXY athletes like M. Semenya? If we are going to acknowledge the tendencies for different genders to have different athletic abilities, why not acknowledge the tendencies among different races, age groups, cultures, shoe sizes, etc? I know, let's just put every individual in their own little athletic division and they can set records against themselves all day long. Imagine the profits for Guinness!
Knowledge != Intelligence
If you haven't looked in to the -how- of a sex change, you probably should. It's fascinating.
Turns out its almost all about the action of estrogen and testosterone on the body. Here's how it works:
Before birth: genetics (not the action of testosterone or estrogen) drive the construction of male or female genitalia along with testicles, prostate, uterus and ovaries. The bodies otherwise develop pretty much exactly the same.
Before puberty: still nothing. Get a boy and a girl both five years old, cut their hair the same and dress them in the same clothes. You won't be able to tell which is which. Except for the genitalia, their bodies are virtually identical.
Puberty: Boys and girls begin producing significant quantities of testosterone or estrogen. Under the action of testosterone, boys gain an extra several inches of height.
Any time: under the action of testosterone, the voice deepens, facial hair appears, body hair becomes coarse and soft tissues redistribute and redevelop towards the abdomen in particular and towards what's considered to be the male figure in general. Under the action of estrogen, the mammaries develop, body hair becomes soft and soft tissue redistributes towards the thighs and the so-called "hourglass figure." And of course if she actually has a uterus then she begins to menstruate.
Note that if you artificially introduce testosterone and estrogen before puberty, the changes start early, typically to the detriment of the girl or boy whose body isn't yet ready.
The appearance of facial hair, the voice drop and the development of the mammaries are permanent features. Skeletal height is also permanent after puberty; you won't add inches by introducing testosterone in your 30s. Once developed these characteristics can only be surgically altered. The soft tissue distribution and body hair character alters under the effect of the two chemicals, so if you change the chemical balance those features will alter.
Post menopause/ed: in the absence of significant amounts of testosterone and estrogen, body hair and figure tend towards a neutral configuration. That's why grandma and grandpa start to look alike.
So, someone undergoing a sex change takes two daily pills: one to block the action of the undesired chemical (estrogen or testosterone) and one which provides the missing chemical. Do this for about a year and 90% of the change is accomplished... From a fully clothed perspective you generally can't tell the difference except that the woman is oddly tall or the man oddly short. In fact, given the expense and risk of the final SRS surgery (versus the sub-$50/month cost of the pills), more than a few trans simply stop there, satisfied with an outward appearance and lifestyle that matches their self-image.
Now apparently the sports officials suspect something more unusual than just tampering with body chemistry is going on here. There's a very rare birth defect in which an individual who is genetically male incorrectly grows female genitalia. They lack ovaries and a uterus. The testicles are still connected but they're up in the abdomen and mostly non-functional. Generally the first time anyone even suspects the individual isn't genetically female is when they reach puberty and the testicles start putting out testosterone. The girl adds 6 inches in a growth spurt, spouts fuzz on her face, loses an octave in her voice and pads her bra. Very embarrassing.
*IF* they insist on dividing the competitions between males and females (and I admit that they usually have good reason for doing so), THEN they should strictly stick to their categories. XY for male, XX for female, with no significant genital "abnormalities" that may affect the outcome.
At the same time, however, maybe they should consider an "other" category. Just so the minority is not left out. The "really special" Olympics, shall we say.
If Caster stops and asks for directions to the track arena, Caster is a female. If Caster continues to drive around, crossing bridges, running into cul-de-sacs, on and off the freeway, then Caster is a male.
Keep Doing Good.
Reminds me of a futurama episode. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bend_Her Bender a robot sex change is a complex and dangerous procedure. Replacing your testosteroil with Fembot lubricants can cause wild mood swings. And the effects may be irreversible. Well let's get started!
No self-respecting biologist would ever so much as suggest it's that simple, especially not in this sort of situation of ambiguity.
From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foekje_Dillema
"In 1950 Dillema was expelled for life by the Dutch National Athletics Federations. A gynaecologist concluded that Dillema was an intersex."
"In 2008, a controversial DNA-test on dead cells from her clothing found that she may have been a Genetic Mosaic, having both 46XX (female) and 46XY (male) chromosomes in approximately a 3 to 1 ratio. "
This is pretty rediculous. This is what happens when silly people organize silly things, then orchestrate silly rules to keep the silly things from becoming too silly, then those silly rules forget the initial point.
The reason men and women don't compete together is because "there will be a disparity between men and women". So they have been seperated. Now someone's saying that this person isn't slow enough to fall into the women's category. Well good news, your whole "split them up by speed" still works.
There are many "marathons" these days. Just general fitness or charity "start here, move yourself across/around the city, end there". Often, you can walk, jog, or run. Obviously the ones walking don't beat the ones running. No one expects them to -- they are simply slower. But still all three "speeds" compete in the event.
What's even more rediculous is that the entire concept of the split is purely for the observer. The woman still scored a 6, and the man still scored a 5. It really doesn't matter how the other women and men scored. That women is better than that man. Why is this a problem.
Throw them all into the same pool. Let the faster ones finish first, and let the slower ones finish last. When all ten women are slower than all ten men, every observer watching from the stands or on TV will say that the best women came "first in her class" -- just like in auto-racing with multiple classes of cars. Hell, put stock cars, formula-1 cars, bicycles, men, women, teenagers, toddlers, infants, and embryos on the same track. I'll expect the formula-1 cars to be faster tha the embryos, it's ok, I can split them up into classes all on my own -- from the results.
It's like I always say to servers in a restaurant who ask my party if we want seperate bills: "thanks, but I can divide a $20 lunch all by myself".
So quit the grouping for no reason -- it's not like they're competing with each-other directly, it's only their scores that compete. When there's a large gap between number 6 and number 7 in the standings, I'll put my group seperation there. And when there isn't, I won't.
For fook sake...if someone is born with a vagina and they haven't taken drugs or gotten surgery to get there, they are a woman.
To try to weed someone out of the athletic process because God (or whatever you believe in) has given them "a little extra" is absurd.
Are we going to treat the Olympics like a dog show and start delving into genetics and "quality of their coat" and all the other BS nitpicks that people use to judge dogs in order to allow people to compete in sports? Absent an obvious attempt at cheating, I find this whole line of "testing" to be repulsive.
I suspect there will be a bunch of posts suggesting a simple genetic test will determine somebody's gender, but these tests were abandoned precisely because there are numerous cases where they fail. To mention a few examples:
Complete Androgen Insensitivity:
There's a number of people with XY chromosome genotype for which teh cells don't respond to testosterone. These individuals develop as women, and because they don't even respond to the very slight amount of testosterone women have they can actually be more feminine in physical terms than XX women. Many don't even know about their condition especially sicne the sign that usually reveals it ( lack of menstruation ) is easily mistaken as being caused by the exercise many athletes undergo.
Chromosome variations:
Not all peopel are XY or XX in chromosomes. There's Klinefelter ( XXY ) , Mosaics ( where some cells have one chromosome setup and some another ), and chimeras ( where different cells not only had different chromosome setups but the entire genotype can vary from cell to cell ).
Hormonal Variation:
Genetics is only part of what determines your sex. Even if you have XY chromosomes that only really affects the pre-puberty development of your genitals. The other sex differences ( secondary sex characteristics ) are down to hormonal influences. This is why transsexuals that go on hormone replacement therapy and have their gonads removed through sex reassignment surgery develop characteristics similar to tehri desired sex ( breast development in Male-to-female transsexuals, facial hair and muscle growth in Female-to-male transsexuals etc... ). This of course brings me to the next point...
Transsexualism:
Just like people can develop ambiguous genitals or chromosomes, some people develop a psychological gender similar to the opposite biological sex. It's not known exactly why this occurs, but it is currently believed to be neurological in origin ( i.e you could have people with a male brain in a female body or the other way around ). Often these individuals will undergo hormone replacement therapy in order to make their bodies more congruent with their psychological gender ( the only known effective treatment, attempting to resolve the situation with psychotherapy typically fails and has frequently resulted in suicides ). Male to female transsexuals tend to lose upper body strength while on hormones, female to male ones gain it. Thus classifying these individuals on the basis of genetics rather than their hormonal status would stick people with male muscle development among female competitors and vice versa.
Essentially your performance in sports is more closely linked to hormonal factors ( and how your body respond to them ) than genetics, and thus a karyotype test is a rally poor way to classify competitors. Believe it or not but you get people with XX chromosomes that have more testosterone than the average man, and conversely XY individuals with female Oestrogen and progesterone levels. What is more is that in some cases the individual in question is not even aware of their genotype and it has happened before that female athletes have been shocked to find out they have Y chromosomes.
Shouldn't these track and field events be a place where we humans can come together and show how far we're able to push our natural limitations without body modification?
Without body modification, I mean without introducing drugs or mechanical advantages into our bodies. To show how far we can go "naturally".
Rules are rules, and the sport has their own governing authority deciding what is and isn't okay.
1. Logically, if she had a sex change, this would be a modification to her body. How is this any different from doping?
2. Logically, if she was born that way, without any drug inducements, the question is, is she considered male or female?
As someone pointed out, males tend to be thought of producing sperm, and females producing ova. But, where does that leave those who don't fit that definition?
Look at one's chromosomes, and whether one's body is producing the hormones that tend to make one male or female. Is she an underdeveloped male, or is she an underveloped female? This may be an oversimplification, but don't males have more testosterone that estrogen, and females more estrogen than testosterone?
All in all, it comes down to how the governing authority of the sport defines it.
Does she go to the bathroom alone or with two friends?
How much time does she spend in the shoe store?
Does the battery of her mobile phone last more than a day?
Ok for crying out loud...
why do we still have rules that tell sports teams that they have to be all male or all female?
I mean, for some sports I can understand that the team might want all male, rugby or gridiron come to mind.
But cricket? Baseball? pffft.
It should be up to the coach who they field, man woman or whatever. At the end of the day it should be their call and on their heads does it fall if the team loses because of it.
Its as bad as paying a woman less than a man for doing the same job.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Gender is largely determined by our genes. But there are a number of articles on the web which demonstrate that hormones present in the womb can alter the initial determination of gender. Short of outright hermaphroditism, a female may have a lot of masculine characteristics, and a male can have a lot of feminine characteristics. Actually, it didn't require a lot of research to figure this out - people everywhere exhibit varying degrees of both masculine and feminine characteristics.
"Prove you're a girl"??? WTF??? PROVE IT??? Give us all a break. Are we going to start demanding DNA and ultrasound analysis of every little leaguer? The kid either grows up thinking that he's a he, or that she's a she. That's good enough for almost anything. And, it should be good enough for the olympics. One shouldn't have to submit to what amounts to sexual molestation. Maybe a blood test. But, the blood test will be little more conclusive than looking at a person. He/she has hormone levels that are outside the norm? Big fucking deal.
This world is getting to damned demanding. No one has a right to demand that I prove my sexuality - NO ONE. Not even if I'm competing on the world stage. This young lady has been researched to death. Her Mama and her Daddy vouch for her, and her birth certificate says "Female".
Drop it, everyone.
The only people who will ever have a legitimate interest in her genitalia are those who find her attractive enough to want to share her bed. And, those people will keep those details private unless they are total jerks.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The thing is that there isn't a clear line between female and male. Being Female or male isn't an absolute thing, it's extreme opposite ends of human sexuality with subtle variations in between. Many people don't realize but there are many people that are in between but it's generally hushed up by the doctors, their family and society in general. Not only are there physical ambiguities of the genitalia and body but also various hormone and neurological variations, all caused by chromosomal, genetic and developmental conditions that would put someone in between the gender extremes. Being physically intersexed, transsexual, bisexual, lesbian, gay, dynamically gendered (changing gender expression with moods), transgendered, a butch straight woman, a feminine straight man, etc are really just part of being in between the gender extremes.
Just like boxing weight divisions break up by weight, I think a better choice is to break up the people based on size, performance and endurance tests. Have high performers compete in one category, mid-range and low range in others. I've seen women that could beat most men in a physical competition, men that wouldn't have a chance when physically competing with other men and many women. If you say one person had a genetic advantage over others why not have them compete with people at their same level of performance. Hell, why not take it a step farther. If people want to use safe forms of performance enhancing drugs, let them as long as they do it against people with their same level of performance. The drug companies could sponsor them.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
If I believe I am a turtle, does that make me a turtle?
I lost all interest in "world class" athletes when FloJo died of a heart attack due to steroid abuse at a young age.
Are you sure it was a heart attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florence_Griffith-Joyner#Death
Just tell her the outfit makes her look fat. If she shrugs, dude. If she bites your head off she's a woman. You could also try blindfolding her and wave a credit card under her nose. You're risking a nasty bite or worse yet a maxed out credit card but it is a way to confirm gender.
Don't most athletes who are at the Olympic level have some sort of athletic advantage. Obviously it's about determination and perseverance in training but its also about have really good genes. An average joe/jane will never ever be able to go to the Olympics no matter how hard they train.
I have persistent thoughts of hoping I die because I feel very strongly that I need to be a woman. I shy away from mirrors in self-disgust. I have to avoid seeing women in general or I will start to get jealous of them. I hate my life.
Why would i choose this?
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
To answer the question of whether or not she should be allowed to compete as a female if she is not 100% female, one must first consider the question of whether women should be competing in a separate class at all.
Let's avoid the underlying moral and philosophical issues and just stick with the practical reason for setting things up so women compete separately: approximately 50% of the population is female, so it is a political necessity. You can argue all sorts of other reasons, but when it really comes down to it, that is the crux of it.
And if you really think about it, we don't actually have women competing against women in one group and men competing against men in another group. What we REALLY have is women competing against women in one group, and EVERYONE ELSE competing in another group. Men are not set up as a protected class, it is only women who are set up as a protected class. If a sufficiently gifted female runner wanted to compete against men, I very much suspect that she'd be allowed to do so.
Once you realize the reality that female sports are basically a protected class based on a political reality, the answer to the other question becomes pretty simple: anyone who is not 100% female is not part of the "protected class" and should therefore compete in the "everyone else" category.
Is it fair? Maybe not. But how is having women compete separately "fair" in the first place? It is just for political expediency, and personally I don't see anything wrong with it if it keeps 50% of the population happier and more fulfilled than they otherwise would be without causing any undue hardship on a significant part of the population.
As a number of folks here have already made it abundantly clear that sex is bugger-all hard to define. There's genetic sex (of which there are nearly a dozen), there's congenital development (we all start out female and then it's pretty much a crap shoot), there're even a fair number of folks without any secondary sexual characteristics at all.
Even if the young lady does or does not have perfectly normal genes, there are dozens of both natural and artificial processes that could give her an unfair advantage. The cost of eliminating all possible ways of cheating (including the unintentional cheating of atypical sexual development) would be prohibitive, and in of itself a form of unfair pandering to vested interests and religious bigots. If you think about it, the extraordinary athlete is often gifted with unusual physical traits (several of the best swimmers had unusual knee joints allowing them to hyper-extend at the knee and get a larger swing in their kicks, and a basketball player under 6 feet is for all intents unheard of.)
I would simply leave it at, if the person lives as their declared sex, functions socially as that sex, and isn't engaging in the illegal use of performance enhancing drugs... get over it.
...previously preferred playing physical games with boys, and shunned traditional female activities and clothing...
If my wife has pants, does that make her a man?
And furthermore, does that make me a homosexual?
If so, does it work the other way around as well?
Would a man dressed in womens' clothing qualify as a woman?
Would that in turn make gay couples were one part dress in womens' clothing heterosexual?
Sigh, if only Douglas Adams were still around to sort out the logic behind all this...
There is a problem with this. Back when East Germany took young children to athletics camps and raised them on cocktails of steroids so they would grow up better it was wrong, and in the modern world when "some other regime" who cares more for their country winning than the effects on the athletes does the same thing with genetic selection or genetic engineering it will still be wrong
Do you suppose that already there is not some party official who has seen Usain Bolts leg measurements and thought to check the leg measurements of all the young children in order to select future winners for special training? What about when that official sees that yes indeed, longer legs means faster sprinters and orders tests done to find an undetectable method of increasing leg lengths while the child is growing? Sure, some will grow too much and live a life of misery (or just get put in the meat grinder with the other failures) but the ones who come out perfect will be winners and nobody will ever know.
The problem is that it is not "people" that want to push themselves to death, it is "people" who want to push others to their deaths and that is not something I want to sponsor. How do we protect against it when we clearly can't detect the causes? The only way is to have a range of norms and only allow those inside that range to compete.
Unfortunatley for her, it seems that Caster does in fact fall outside of the range of normal (just look at the pictures, she is not normal even when compared to other female runners), and for me the question is not whether we allow her to compete or not but what will happen if we do? I assert that that party official will be trawling orphanages immediately looking for other genetic deformities that can be exploited similarly. Won't somebody please think of the children?
Olympic cheating is a sport of its own.
The Russians and East Germans sent more bearded "ladies" through the system than I care to count.
Greek weightlifters managed to get to Beijing despite 11 of their 14-man team being caught on steroids.
The Chinese out-and-out lied and presented forged documents to the Olympic committee and IFG about the age of their gymnast girls and got away with it scot-free. North Korea wasn't so lucky since their star girl was still losing her baby teeth at the time.
Marion Jones.
And on and on... try a basic google search on Olympic Cheating.
It used to be that people went to the Olympics as true amateurs to represent their countries and sports. Now? Let's face it, the Olympics have outlived their usefulness. Countries themselves compete, not just athletes. Professional athletes play in half the sports. And the two-year schedule has robbed the games of their scarcity, so much so that 90% of people don't even notice they are happening.
The "Olympics" have become a joke, nothing more.
The SRY gene is responsible for only a small proportion of direct masculinization: it causes the gonads to develop as testicles, it causes production of anti-Müllerian hormone, it causes production of androgens (i.e. testosterone), and it causes some tiny changes in the brain. All the remaining primary and secondary characteristics are the result of either AMH or testosterone.
Supposing a 46-XY subject with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome), note that AMH is still effective at de-feminizing the internal genitalia by triggering the reabsorption of the Müllerian ducts: no fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, or upper vagina. However, because the androgen signal cannot be received, Wolffian ducts do not form: no efferent ducts, epididymis, vas deferens, or seminal vesicle. Also, the brain is not fully masculinized, as the bulk of brain masculinization is androgen-induced, not SRY-induced.
The final CAIS result is external female genitalia, a shallow vagina, active testes producing male gametes, male-normal androgen levels, and no internal genitalia (male or female) beyond the testes and vagina. The testes may remain undescended, or may descend into the labia majora (homologous to the scrotum) where they are easily palpable. Gender identity is most frequently female, due to largely absent masculinization of the brain. Secondary sexual characteristics are frequently hyper-feminine: in contrast to a CAIS individual, a typical woman express some androgen-induced characteristics (albeit vastly reduced from the same in a typical man). In particular, CAIS individuals frequently have little to no body/pubic hair, and highly feminine facial bone structure. For this reason, there is a disproportionate positive correlation between CAIS and supermodels.
PAIS (Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) is much less sharply defined, as it runs the gamut from nearly-CAIS-woman to man-with-micropenis, including everything between the two (depending on how badly impaired the androgen receptors are).
Note that the athlete in the article clearly does not have androgen insensitivity, either complete or partial, so this line of discussion is irrelevant to that topic. My best guess (as a well-educated layperson) is 46-XX, absence of SRY, with abnormally high testosterone production. The facial bone structure suggests high androgen exposure during puberty, which for reasons of exposure consistency would tend to rule out steroids or an androgenic endocrine tumor, and the female gender identity and (presumed) presence of external female genitalia rules out fetal androgen exposure from testicular tissue (e.g. chimeric absorption of a 46-XY twin brother). Perhaps some genetic disruption of the regulatory regions involved in testosterone production (more likely), or an abnormally strong response to female-typical androgen levels (less likely). My conclusion: in essence, an unusually butch woman.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters