The SRY gene test is here

Well, not exactly "here". World Athletics announced today that the test will be mandatory for athletes wishing to compete in the female category starting from September 1st. For the time being it is not clear for which competitions the test will be a requirement. Judging from the words of Lord Sebastian 

“We are saying, at elite level, for you to compete in the female category, you have to be biologically female. It was always very clear to me and the World Athletics Council that gender cannot trump biology",

it will probably concern only high-level ones. It will only be required to pass the test once-a-lifetime and it can be conducted by a simple cheek swab (but also through a blood test). 

So, what is the SRY gene test about? The aim of the test is to detect the presence of the SRY gene, which is the Sex-determining Region on the Y chromosome, responsible for initiating male sex development in mammals. The gene is coding for a protein that triggers the formation of testes and male sexual characteristics. The test is cheap and highly predictive of male development. It can classify 99.99% of individuals as either male or female.

Of course one can wonder about the remaining 0.01%. This is, and by far given the size of people practicing competitive sport, a non-negligible class. There can indeed be discrepancies between the screening results and the individual's development. If such a thing happens the athlete has to undergo further testing, conducted by medical experts. The aim of this is to detect whether the athlete has experienced male development during puberty (in which case he cannot be admitted in the female category). It's a perfectly ethical way to handle the atypical situations that leaves the final decision to experts. 

Let us have a look at these "atypical" situations. The three more common ones are Swyer syndrome, CAIS and 5-ARD. 

The Swyer syndrome (also known as 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis) is a condition where an individual has a 46,XY karyotype (typically male chromosomes) but develops a female phenotype with normal female external genitalia, uterus, and fallopian tubes. However the individual does not undergo puberty naturally and is infertile. The syndrome is often caused by mutations in the SRY gene. Women with Swyer syndrome have no advantage due to the presence of the X chromosome and should be allowed to participate in female competitions, despite failing the SRY test.

The Complete Androgen InSensitivity (CAIS) is a condition where an individual has a 46,XY karyotype but the body’s cells completely fail to respond to androgens. The external genitalia are female and the testes are usually undescended, located inside the abdomen. The syndrome is caused by mutations in the androgen receptor gene which blocks the ability of the body to respond to testosterone. The individuals do not experience male development and do not have any advantage associated with androgenisation. Again, women with CAIS should be allowed to participate in female competitions.

The 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD) is a condition where a genetic male (46,XY) has a deficiency of the enzyme 5-alpha-reductase, which converts testosterone into dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The latter is the hormone essential for the masculinisation of external genitalia before birth. In this case the individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia and may be assigned female at birth. However the testes are present and the deficiency of DHT does not impact the male-level testosterone production at puberty nor the androgen receptor response. So, these individuals have a male development and all the advantages of masculinisation. (I am looking at you, Semenya). Clearly, women with 5-ARD should not be allowed to participate in female competitions.

For World Athletics the athletes who may compete in the female category are biological females and, as we explained above, biological males with CAIS (and, I suppose, Swyer syndrome as well). Transgender women are excluded. On this point the rules of WA are less logical since they accept biological males with DSD (probably, 5-ARD) provided they satisfy the transitional conditions (that have to do with lowering the testosterone level) and, in some way, sidestep the issue of transgender claiming that there is none competing at the elite international level under the current regulations. This is, of course, pure rubbish. What one expects from World Athletics are clear rules that would apply to everybody and not just the elite.  

When I saw the article on the WA website I rushed over to the X/twitter page of Ross Tucker (a sports physiologist for whom I have a deep respect). And, as expected, his commentary was already there:

"Excellent & necessary step, which I hope other sports follow. Fairness & safety in women’s sport requires that male advantage be excluded. That means drawing a solid boundary around it, and screening to confirm who is eligible, and who should be excluded". 

Tucker and collaborators had published (after the fiasco of boxing during the Paris Olympics) an article entitled "Fair and Safe Eligibility Criteria for Women's Sport". As was expected the trans lobby reacted with fallacious arguments, hiding behind a cloak of respectability with Professor (does he really need to sign as "professor"? Does he need to use an appeal to authority even for himself?) A. Williams claiming that many disagree with the proposed measures. This is utterly ridiculous. We are electing governments for which sometimes almost half the population is against. Does this mean that we should not have any government at all? But anyhow, just to set this straight, Tucker and collaborators refer to a survey of female athletes after the Atlanta 1996 Olympics where 82% supported sex testing and only 6% reported discomfort about the test protocol. I am willing to bet that in the case of the cheek swab for the SRY test the female athletes' agreement will be overwhelming. (And, of course, a disagreeing minority will always exist).

The main reason we are still talking about the need to protect women's sport is that the IOC, who could have settled the question long ago, preferred, once more, to wash their hands and leave the decision to the federations. But while the richest federations can finance scientific studies on which to base their measures for the protection of the female category, the poorer ones (the vast majority) are left to fend for themselves. Before her election at the IOC presidency, Kirsty Coventry had stated that it was important to ensure fairness in women's sport and to maintain the integrity of women's categories. What will she do now that she is at the head of the Olympic Committee? Will she, like her predecessor, hide behind neutrality? Perhaps not. In fact at a recent press conference she stated that  "There was overwhelming support for the idea that we must protect the female category. Therefore, we will create a working group composed of experts ... We [the IOC] should be the ones to bring together the experts and international federations and ensure consensus". (I will believe it when I see it).

The article in the WA site ends with the statement that

World Athletics does not judge or question gender identity.

I don't either, but I cannot stand mediocre men who, since they cannot prevail over other men in competition, decided that it is easier to beat women. This is as sexist as it can be and the (non-athlete) women who advocate for (male) transgender athletes to be admitted into female sports should awaken from their misguided, beliefs. Women had striven for years in order to be admitted to sports. Now that they are, at long last, there, their efforts should not be in vain because of the woke-induced illusions of a minority who distastes sports.

On the fake progressivity of the WA scoring tables

I have always pointed out in this blog that World Athletics is doing something the wrong way: scoring track events using time instead of the appropriate physical variable i.e. the velocity. 

Recently the World Athletics Scoring Tables were updated in order to provide scoring for the "new" events recognised by WA: 300 m hurdles, mile road race, half marathon race walk, marathon race walk and the mixed relays 4x400 m outdoor and indoor. Mind you, these are not the combined events scoring tables. (I don't know how long we will have to wait before World Athletics decides to provide a scoring for women's short track 1000 m making possible the homologation of indoor heptathlon records for women).

Since the 300 m hurdles has been a race abundantly advertised at the beginning of the season I decided to have a look at its scoring. Below is a graph giving the dependence of the number of points of the registered time. 

The continuous line corresponds to the fit with a formula 

(which is exactly what WA is using in the decathlon scoring tables). From the best fit we obtain the values a=1.279 and c=1.955, while the time corresponding to 0 points is 67.42 s. The appearance of the curve and the value of c close to 2 sustain the illusion of progressivity. But let us look at what happens when one uses the proper physical variable, namely the velocity. In the graph below 

the dependence of the number of points with the velocity is almost rectilinear. In fact when one performs a fit with an expression

one obtains the values a=222.7 and c=1.129 (while the velocity for 0 points is 4.4776 m/s). The value of c close to 1 confirms the visual impression of lack of progressivity. 

This is not something new. The same behaviour is observed on the scoring of all track events. But, by giving the scoring in terms of the time, a misleading progressivity appears, which unfortunately masks the defect of the scoring choice.

The question of progressivity is one that my friends of Décapassion, Frédéric and Pierre Gousset, have addressed in a slghtly different context, that of throws. They remarked that the scoring of throws, given by a formula similar to the one based on the velocity, has exponents c equal to 1.05, 1.1 and 1.08 for the shot put, discus and javelin throw respectively, an almost rectilinear dependence. They argue that this should be remedied with exponents c=2 leading to real progressivity. I will not enter into more details here and invite you to go and read their most interesting article. (We have been, for some time now, thinking about writing a joint article on the matter. I just hope that one day we'll find the time to do this). 

For the Decathlon fans

I was expecting this article, since my Décapassion friend, Frédéric Gousset, was present during the Décastar at Talence. The article has now appeared on their blog along with superb photos. 

If you have followed the event and you wish to re-live it, just follow this link. And if you have missed it, that's an even more important reason to go and visit their blog and enjoy the excellent article on the 2025 Décastar. (And don't worry if you don't know french. Today's translations are near perfect). 

PS In my post on the "One-day decathlon" I talked about the idea of 4-misses-out  (or 5 or 6) for the vertical jumps. In fact, the more I think about this the more I like it. It's a perfect mechanism to mitigate the no-height risk. Suppose an athlete starts at 4.80 m in pole vault and has three misses. He cannot go higher but he still can try at a lower height. If the organisers have proposed an initial height at, say, 4.40 m and increments of 10 cm afterwards he can use his remaining misses at, say, 4.50 m. If he passes, he can even try at some superior height (but still lower than the 4.80 m where he had three misses). Had such a rule been adopted early enough, the 1992 olympic title would have most probably changed owner.