TL;DR, the test is for the presence of the SRY gene, which in most cases will identify male vs female. However, there are edge cases where it will be inaccurate because the gene doesn’t function or other circumstances lead to a biological female (e.g. testosterone insensitivity). False positives from contamination and access of poorer countries to good laboratories and genetic counselors is also questionable.
The test stopped being used in 2000
2020, so it’s not clear why it is being brought back now.2000, not 2020.
You’re right. Mistyped it. Corrected.
I mean it’s pretty clear why it’s being brought back. Transphobia.
I’m just summarizing the article.
I think even without transphobia, there’s a problem of fairness that doesn’t seem to have a good science based solution for now. Would you know about one?
The science actually suggests that no singlr test (genetic, hormonal, or physical) can perfectly categorize athletes becuase biological sex exists on a spectrum with multiple overlapping characteristics - which is why sports orgs should probably focus on sport-specific physical attributes rather than trying to create binary categories.
In the current situation, you have some people becoming champions even when their physical attributes are weaker than the average of their competitors. For example some swimming champions are smaller. Wouldn’t locking them in smaller people category ruin the sport?
This is a great article that lays out the problems with SRY testing in a clear way. I’ve bookmarked it, as I suspect I’ll find it useful to send to someone at some point
