"An a priori understanding of women with DSDI as unhealthy and, thus, outside normal variation creates a rationale for their exclusion both in reference ranges and the policies. But it is also circular: Because women with DSDI are a priori excluded when the reference ranges are created, the findings from the Daegu study—that women athletes have T levels no different from nonathlete women—reinforce their values as outsiders and justify the policy...
What looks like a controversy rooted firmly in science is ultimately a social and ethical one concerning how we understand and frame human diversity. These assessments are not trivial: They shape not only the research methods and findings but also how we understand what is at stake in this policy. And this has very real consequences for people's lives.
Policy-makers, among others, claim that the problem is that women with naturally high T have unfair advantage, despite having acknowledged in their Daegu study that “there is no clear scientific evidence proving that a high level of T is a significant determinant of performance in female sports” (11)."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/927.2.full
The article is interesting, but I strongly strongly recommend listening to her interview on the Science podcast - she lays it all out really, really well and includes the open scientific questions as well as the social questions (Why do we only subject women to sex testing? Does testosterone predict athleticism?) and points out that there is no single biomarker for biological sex. It's a complicated trait we've applied social concepts to.
No comments:
Post a Comment