News: Gender Bender

[Munsu]

Report: Indian 800-meter medalist fails gender test



NEW DELHI, India -- An Indian runner who won a silver medal in the women's 800 meters in the Asian Games this month has failed a gender test and is expected to be stripped of the medal, according to reports Monday.

Santhi Soudarajan took the gender test in Doha, Qatar, after the victory.

The test reports sent to the Indian Olympic Association on Sunday said Soudarajan "does not possess the sexual characteristics of a woman," The Times of India reported. The test was administered by a medical commission set up by the games' organizers.

There are no compulsory gender tests during events sanctioned by the International Association of Athletics Federation, but athletes can be asked to take a gender test. The medical evaluation panel usually includes a gynecologist, endocrinologist, psychologist, and an internal medicine specialist.

Dr. Manmohan Singh, chairman of the medical commission of the Indian Olympic Association told the Indian Express newspaper that the Olympic Council of Asia had been informed of the results of Soudarajan's gender test.

Sports officials in the athlete's home state of Tamil Nadu said that they have no information on her whereabouts.

"If the reports are true, then it is very sad and extremely disappointing," her coach, P. Nagarajan, told the Indian Express.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press

I don't know, but I thought this was hillarious

[el_boss]

How can they even be unsure? I mean how difficult is it to distinguish a vagina from a penis. There must be alot of virgins in the commite. :D

[Assassin]

well you dont see that every day.

this reminds me of that episode of futurama where bender pretends to be a fembot from robonia in order to compete as a woman in the robot olympics.

[Kraco]

Shouldn't it be easy enough to just check for the Y chromosome? Few genuine women posses that one.

[el_boss]

well you dont see that every day.

this reminds me of that episode of futurama where bender pretends to be a fembot from robonia in order to compete as a woman in the robot olympics.Also he was named "The Gender Bender" in the wrestling episode.

[Psyke]

How can they even be unsure? I mean how difficult is it to distinguish a vagina from a penis. There must be alot of virgins in the commite. :D

100% sex change operations are not that uncommon these days.

[Assertn]

well really, if the sex change is 100%, then there shouldn't be a problem. The problem lies where a person enters the competition as a woman with the muscle mass of a man. This shouldn't be too hard to figure out scientifically, btw.

[Spiegel]

Well I can honestly say I wasnt expecting that, But nice play on the Futurama episode.


Also he was named "The Gender Bender" in the wrestling episode.

I loved the pink tutu and the whole getup of that episode.

[Munsu]

Take a guess.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1787/soundarajan01glx2.jpg

[Spiegel]

Take a guess.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1787/soundarajan01glx2.jpg

Yeah, I think if you can't figure that one out, you need to think real hard about what you see in a woman.

[samsonlonghair]

100% sex change operations are not that uncommon these days.

There's no such thing as a 100% sex change. A surgeon can change a persons genitals cosmetically, but that does not actually change the persons gender. A man who takes estrogen supplements and undergoes a "sex change" operation does not become a woman; he becomes a man with mutilated genitals and an upset hormone system.

There's no need for a blood test to prove this runner was originally a man. a simple CAT scan could show the absence of a uterus.

[Psyke]

Yeah I agree on the 100% part. You can't make a total switch no matter how advanced technology becomes. But if you're talking on legal terms, it's a different story altogether. They even get to change the "sex" status on their identity cards.

As for the indian runner, last I heard from my local news is that her home town is honouring her and giving her, erm..... him a medal for bringing glory to their country.

[Assassin]

my question is, how does he/she/it get a sex change operation anyway? i mean, these kinds of things aren't exactly that common in that part of the world, and even if he/she got an operation from some other country, its still hella expensive i'd bet. Not to mention that someone would've noticed that thier next door neighbour suddenly dissappeared and a oddly familiar woman started living there instead.

[Assertn]

Yeah, I think if you can't figure that one out, you need to think real hard about what you see in a woman.

They all kinda look like guys. It's hard to look feminine when you're in the olympics

[Spiegel]

They all kinda look like guys. It's hard to look feminine when you're in the olympics

True, True, But I think the left 'person' does look the most like a man of the three.

[BioAlien]

Take a guess.

http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1787/soundarajan01glx2.jpg


"she" won the silver medal, so it is even more obvious which one it is... ("she" really is ugly...)

[complich8]

How can they even be unsure? I mean how difficult is it to distinguish a vagina from a penis. There must be alot of virgins in the commite. :D


According to the highest estimates (Fausto-Sterling et. al., 2000) perhaps 1 percent of live births exhibit some degree of sexual ambiguity [1], and that between 0.1% and 0.2% of live births are ambiguous enough to become the subject of specialist medical attention, including surgery to disguise their sexual ambiguity.
Compare to the ~1% prevalence of schizophrenia. If your world is large enough that you know a schizophrenic, you probably know someone who was born with some sort of gender ambiguity. However, most people born that way don't even know it.

On the other hand, it's distinctly possible that this dude really is a dude who decided to do whatever it took to win a medal, even if it meant misrepresenting himself as a woman in order to do so. Lots of people buy into the "win at any cost" mentality...

I imagine that if you were intersexed and found you had an athletic talent, you'd compete wherever you could. I mean, really, gender requirements are usually built around the idea that everyone involved is going to be a clear gender. Given the ~6 billion people on Earth, even at the strictest definitions of "true intersexuality", there's still well over 1 million people in that category. Surely one of that million can run :p. But when you see someone who looks unambiguously male competing at a very high level in women's sports, yeah ... I don't think it's wrong to check >_<.

[Super5]

So how did they check if s/he was a woman or not? The old "feel 'her' up" gag? Seriously, though, this person must have been really desperate to win something if they tried to pass as a woman...

[samsonlonghair]

So how did they check if s/he was a woman or not? The old "feel 'her' up" gag? Seriously, though, this person must have been really desperate to win something if they tried to pass as a woman...
They probably did a blood test and checked his/her chromosome levels because there's a legal precedent. The Olympic committee has performed blood tests on athletes for years to test for steroid abuse. This allows them to do blood tests without any legal challenges.

But, like I said, a CAT scan would be easier, and more accurate. Taking the right hormone supplements could mask your chromosomes (to some degree), but nothing can change the fact that someone born as a man has no uterus.

[complich8]

But, like I said, a CAT scan would be easier, and more accurate. Taking the right hormone supplements could mask your chromosomes (to some degree), but nothing can change the fact that someone born as a man has no uterus.

Yikes ... there's a lot wrong with this ...

(1) Hormones can NOT mask chromosomes. EVER. Having a lot of estrogen in your system doesn't have any effect on determining whether you're XX or XY. On the other hand, having a lot of androgens in your system DOES give a telltale pointer to steroid use, which would be a clear foul to begin with. Regardless, the only way an XY male will test as XX in a chromosome test is chimerism (ie: they fused with a fraternal twin in the womb), and that's pretty goddamned rare (and can also be tested for with blood and tissue samples, if need arises).

(2) While it's true that normal man have no uterus, androgen-insensitive genetic males certainly can. In the absence of (or ineffectiveness of) masculinizing hormones, the human body under normal circumstances develops female. Moreover, women can be born without uteruses, or have them removed (in the case of cervical, uterine or ovarian cancer, for example). The assumption that you can determine a person's "true" sex by looking at their internal organs is a pretty big misconception that hasn't really been accepted as valid by the medical world since the early 20th century.

(3) A CAT scan is based on X-rays, and thus are associated with particularly high doses of ionizing radiation (which is a cancer risk). Further, they typically use contrast agents which people can have allergic reactions to. Given the drawbacks, I'd personally rather submit to a blood test (involving drawing a couple ounces of blood), a small bandaid and some juice) or an epithelial cell culture (involving swabbing the inside of your mouth with a cotton swab). Or, for that matter, an MRI, if you HAVE to look inside. However, in the case of sexually normal people, simply having a doctor look is probably sufficient, and the least invasive method.

I mean ... if it's a guy who chopped his guy-parts off to compete with women, I say let him. He's gone through enough pain and loss to compensate for it, and at least we know he won't reproduce :p.

[Assertn]

Yikes ... there's a lot wrong with this ...

(1) Hormones can NOT mask chromosomes. EVER. Having a lot of estrogen in your system doesn't have any effect on determining whether you're XX or XY. On the other hand, having a lot of androgens in your system DOES give a telltale pointer to steroid use, which would be a clear foul to begin with. Regardless, the only way an XY male will test as XX in a chromosome test is chimerism (ie: they fused with a fraternal twin in the womb), and that's pretty goddamned rare (and can also be tested for with blood and tissue samples, if need arises).

What about people with XXY?

[complich8]

Hah! Klinefelter's for the lose :p.

[Yukimura]

I think XXY people still count as male and that extra chromosome will not change the glaring Y lines on the DNA blot.

[samsonlonghair]

Yikes ... there's a lot wrong with this ... [/quote/
Okay, one part at a time.
[QUOTE=complich8]
(1) Hormones can NOT mask chromosomes. EVER. Having a lot of estrogen in your system doesn't have any effect on determining whether you're XX or XY. On the other hand, having a lot of androgens in your system DOES give a telltale pointer to steroid use, which would be a clear foul to begin with. Regardless, the only way an XY male will test as XX in a chromosome test is chimerism (ie: they fused with a fraternal twin in the womb), and that's pretty goddamned rare (and can also be tested for with blood and tissue samples, if need arises).

Maye I wasn't being clear about this. I wasn't saying that the hormones literally mask the chromosomes. For the purposes of a blood test changing your hormones can act like a mask. Of course the hormones can't really change your Y chromosome to an X. That was kinda the whole point of my argument which can be summarized: Despite the amazing advancements of medical technology, there's no way to literally change your gender. You can fool a blood test, but a man can not actually have real female organs.
I can see how I might have seemed ambiguous on that part.



(2) While it's true that normal man have no uterus, androgen-insensitive genetic males certainly can. In the absence of (or ineffectiveness of) masculinizing hormones, the human body under normal circumstances develops female. Moreover, women can be born without uteruses, or have them removed (in the case of cervical, uterine or ovarian cancer, for example). The assumption that you can determine a person's "true" sex by looking at their internal organs is a pretty big misconception that hasn't really been accepted as valid by the medical world since the early 20th century.
For the sake of simplicity I didn't include people born trans-gendered (mainly because It will take me off on a tangent). The part about "true" sex is a grating point for me. I can empathize with people who are born one gender, but want to become another. I honestly can. I also understand that in the realm of social sciences, the phenomena of having a true gender other than the one with which you are born is recognized. Unfortunately, there's a very dangerous myth that a surgeon can solve this for you. That is absolutely not true. A person can undergo "gender re-assignment surgery" and even have his/her identity legally changed to match this, but that does not literally change his/her gender. The politics of the matter have obfuscated the facts of hard science. A surgeon has no more ability to literally change a person's gender than an astronaut does to change the movements of the planets.
As mighty as man is with all his science, there are some things he simply can not change.



(3) A CAT scan is based on X-rays, and thus are associated with particularly high doses of ionizing radiation (which is a cancer risk). Further, they typically use contrast agents which people can have allergic reactions to. Given the drawbacks, I'd personally rather submit to a blood test (involving drawing a couple ounces of blood), a small bandaid and some juice) or an epithelial cell culture (involving swabbing the inside of your mouth with a cotton swab). Or, for that matter, an MRI, if you HAVE to look inside. However, in the case of sexually normal people, simply having a doctor look is probably sufficient, and the least invasive method.

To be perfectly clear about this, there is absolutely no blood test on earth that can not be fooled by someone determined enough. Just as any lock can be picked, any blood test can be fooled. There is no blood test currently in use that has not already been "cracked".

I can understand that there's a natural distrust of radiation. It scares a lot of people out of CAT scans, even those who really need them. True, if someone with no training tried to administer a CAT scan he'd kill the patient in a very slow and painful manner. In the hands of a skilled radiologist, however, a Cat scan is not only a life-saving tool, it's a safe one. The typical radiation dose used is very low. See here (http://www.hpa.org.uk/radiation/publications/w_series_reports/2005/nrpb_w67.pdf) for a more in-depth study. Your point about the dye is a valid one. Statistically, about one in three hundred patients will have an allergic reaction to the dye. This can easily be tested for.

Ironically, MRI machines are much more dangerous. This seems counter-intuitive, right? How can magnets be more dangerous than radiation? It seems hard to believe, but the accident rate on MRIs is much higher. The magnets needed for an MRI are tremendously strong. Any nearby ferris metals will be pulled towards those magnets at more than one hundred miles per hour. A pocket knife, a syringe, a set of keys, an oxygen tank, anything nearby will fly towards your body once the magnets are activated. No matter how many times the doctor tells his patients not to bring anything with them into the room, they never listen. Cleaning staff can also be at fault here. That just accounts for things outside of the body. Seafood lovers often don't know that the bits of shell fragment they often swallow are magnetic (and often sharp). A number of times patients actually neglect to mention that they have pacemakers next to their heart. It's a good thing that's available in the medical records. There's also a phenomena called PNR (Peripheral nerve stimulation) wherein the magnetic gradients screw with your nervous system. All in all, MRIs aren't as safe as they sound.


This turned out to be a longer discussion than I had expected.