Talk:Caster Semenya

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Lopez a4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Section on the intersex (alleged), XY chromosome controversy?

This has obviously become a matter of global attention and interest of late. It's not exactly clear to me whether a section on this issue would run afoul of WP:BLP, or otherwise invite highly objectionable contributions. At the same time, it's out there in RS and it could be handled carefully and sensitively. Thoughts? Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the New York Times now acknowledges she has XY genetic male chromosomes and that her's is not a case of XX genetic female hyperandrogenism as this Wikipedia article still incorrectly states: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/08/sports/semenya-xy-chromosomes.html

This Wikipedia article also incorrectly states that the IAAF rules apply to hyperandrogenous athletes, but (1) the rules apply to genetically male athletes with specific disorders of sex development and with testosterone levels of 5 nmol/L and above and who do not have complete androgen insensitivity and (2) the rules do not apply to genetically female hyperandrogenism and specifically mention excluding those with polycystic ovary syndrome.

No objections from anyone? This is a controversial area and the fact that it's not in the article already may have been due to legitimate BLP concerns. If no further comment then we can start on a section addressing this issue — clearly it is a major part of Semenya's notability at this point. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this really needs to be included. I was researching intersex gender identification and looked up Caster's Wikipedia entry, expecting full transparency and an explanation of the sporting rules now applicable to her. Instead, I found silence. I was thinking about complaining, because it reminded me of my early youth, when homosexuality was shamefully hushed up. Luckily, I saw the 'talk' tab and clicked on it. As a human rights lawyer, I think hiding the truth is very rarely helpful. Besides, as you point out, this story emerged years ago. It's not new. If people target it, that's their problem, not a reason to give in to prejudice. Thanks for agreeing to fix this. Tasha Corr (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

BLP issues / medical information / edit-warring

Ok - I've protected the page for 24 hours on an arbitrary version to get everyone to the talk page. Given this is a living person, and given that folks are bandying around personal medical information about this person, and adding (patently false) conjecture about the subject's genitalia, this will need to be discussed here before further edits are made. Some of them were egregious enough to be rev-del'd.

So please - discuss here and come to consensus, whilst being cognisant of WP:BLP - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'll start with my views:

I think that we need to lay off the genitalia stuff completely. We can link the article about the specific intersex condition she has if (and only if!) we are absolutely certain that it is the correct one and we have solid RS references to prove it. People who are interested can learn about that specific condition there and how it typically affects people. We should not be talking about how it specifically affects Semenya in any way that is not directly related to her career as an athlete and can be demonstrated to be so with RS references. We should not be indulging in, or repeating others indulging in, speculation, gossip and abuse. We don't speculate about the genitalia of other athletes (even though this is a game that the British tabloid press have sometimes amused themselves with in the past) and there is no justification for doing so here. We are better than that.

I think we need avoid the use of the word "hermaphrodite" and any variant thereof. Possibly completely but definitely when using Wikipedia's own voice. It might be defensible to mention that she has been described as such by certain sources, maybe in the context of a section detailing the extent of the abuse and discrimination that she has been subjected to, but not in a way that grants any prestige or credibility to such descriptions. I think that we should be guided by asking ourselves When and how would we use, say, the "N word" in a BLP article? and if the answer to that is pretty much never, and only with the very utmost caution, then I think that's our answer here too.

I think we can all agree that mention of her testosterone levels is valid, as that is actually relevant to her performance as an athlete and that is where the controversies about her actually lie. That said, even that should not be overblown or worded in a sensational or demeaning way.

In summary, while I am not against discussing changes to the article, I believe that the version protected is defensible and offers a far better starting point than any of the recent reverted changes. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The controversy about Caster Semenya is not that easy to summarise, but multiple medical reliable sources suggest that 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (which Caster Semenya has, again, according to reliable sources) is preferentially assigned male at birth. Moreover, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on the same clearly states 'Individuals with 5-ARD are born with male gonads, including testicles and Wolffian structures.'

The word hermaphrodite is not appropriate, but the fact that Caster Semenya has testes rather than ovaries is fundamental in that testes is what produce the large volume of testosterone in men, as opposed to the much smaller volume of testosterone in women, and it is this testosterone that results in large sporting performance differences between males and females post-puberty. [in sporting terms it is not particularly important which sex you were 'assigned at birth', since there are minimal performance differences before puberty - it is whether you experience male or female puberty]

It is not appropriate to say 'Caster Semenya is a man', but the current article is mystifying and obfuscatory in that whereas Caster Semenya has lost a case to compete without suppressing testosterone to the levels that a male-to-female transgender person would have to comply to, the article uses weasel phrases like 'cisgender woman'. Stating 'Caster Semenya is a woman' is not particularly meaningful or informative in a sporting context if that statement has no meaning beyond 'Caster Semenya states that Caster Semenya is a woman'. Even if the statement 'Caster Semenya is a woman' is true, Caster Semenya is in a different category of woman to the overwhelming majority of other athletes competing in female athletics, in that there are rules that exclusively apply to people competing as women who have testes. These rules do not apply to women with PCOS, or ovarian tumours.

They apply, and this is could not be more clear: [1]

"individuals who are:

legally female (or intersex) and

who have one of a certain number of specified DSDs, which mean that they have:

male chromosomes (XY) not female chromosomes (XX)

testes not ovaries

circulating testosterone in the male range (7.7 to 29.4 nmol/L) not the (much lower) female range (0.06 to 1.68 nmol/L); and

the ability to make use of that testosterone circulating within their bodies (i.e., they are ‘androgen-sensitive’)."

While we cannot say that these individuals are men necessarily, as by definition they have a DSD, which means that they do not have normal male sexual biology (nor indeed normal female sexual biology), however the words there are clear that these athletes have biological characteristics central to sporting performance that are in the male category rather than the female category.

The current article uses other weasel words such as 'naturally elevated' - they are not 'naturally elevated' but rather normal for people with testes. It does not make sense to describe normally functioning testes as 'naturally elevated'. Some people with testes cannot process testosterone, and they will develop a normal female phenotype, i.e. CAIS, but World Athletics specifically excludes that. These are rules that apply to 'individuals with testes not ovaries, who have normal male testosterone levels, and can use that testosterone in their bodies'.

The appearance or form of external genitalia is not material to sporting performance, but the presence or absence of testes is fundamental. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A Wikipedia biography article is not based on our own opinions or even expertise as editors, but entirely on details written in reliable secondary sources which have a high reputation for being accurate in the relevant field and that are directly relevant to the subject of the article. All claims of fact need to be always fully supported with citations from these secondary sources. It simply does not matter if you know better, however well written or argued, editors' original ideas, interpretations, and research are not appropriate here. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what that is supposed to be a reply to. Sumbuddi (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The keyword is in the first sentence of your response; "suggest" - you need a little more than conjecture in a BLP, especially when it comes to non-public personal medical information - Alison ^❤ 05:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read beyond the first sentence, which I do not refer to in the rest of my reply. The rules do not apply to people without testes. This is not a 'suggestion', it is a concrete fact. Sumbuddi (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the whole thing, and find it irrelevant to the article. It's meaningless to say that "multiple medical reliable sources suggest that 5-alpha-reductase deficiency (which Caster Semenya has, again, according to reliable sources) is preferentially assigned male at birth" is "a concrete fact", since "preferentially assigned" is about cultural practices, and Semenya was in fact assigned female at birth. As for "The rules do not apply to people without testes", we don't know whether Semenya has testes. It seems that you're making an argument she must (among other arguments you're making), but that's WP:Synth which is not allowed. I would also note that a) your argument is circular since the "rules" you quote include "testes not ovaries" as one of the conditions, so you can't conclude that she has testes from those "rules", b) the article is about the person Caster Semenya, not about "sporting performance" and Wikipedia is not "a sporting context", and c) "weasel words" has a meaning at WP, and 'naturally elevated' does not qualify. "It does not make sense to describe normally functioning testes as 'naturally elevated'" -- perhaps not, but we don't know that she has "normally functioning testes", and it does make sense to describe "an intersex woman, assigned female at birth" that way, with three citations and "elevated testosterone levels" linked to Hyperandrogenism. This is not weaseling, but rather a good faith effort to thread a needle through a complex set of facts that does not include Semenya having testes. If we had reliable sources stating that, rather than editors inferring it, then the article could be written differently. -- Jibal (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It would not be WP:SYNTH to say that she has 5-ARD, and then describe what 5-ARD means (e.g. including internal testes if we'd like). But, I'm not sure if it even is confirmed that Semenya has that though, the only source I can really find that says it definitively is this Guardian article: [2]. Though, for the new IAAF rules to apply to her she would indeed have to have testes, but I'm not sure we should state that explicitly unless reliable sources do. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not sure we should state that explicitly unless reliable sources do." -- um, yes; doing so would be WP:SYNTH. Again, "If we had reliable sources stating that, rather than editors inferring it, then the article could be written differently." -- Jibal (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of Joanna Jóźwik's comments

Coverage of Joanna Jóźwik's alleged comments was recently removed and then reinstated. No reason was given for the removal, and the reinstatement was done for that reason, which was perfectly fair and reasonable. That said, I think I can see a possible argument for not including the comments so I thought we should discuss it. Of the two sources, the Independent is careful not to absolutely attribute the alleged comments to Jóźwik saying "appeared to controversially claim" while the Guardian is less cautious. The alleged comments themselves do not seem to specifically target Semenya and read as a more general expression of racist white entitlement that dismisses the achievement of all three of the black athletes who beat her equally. If there is any doubt at all that Jóźwik really did say those things then we should either make it clear that they are alleged comments, or else avoid including them completely, as they make her sound absolutely awful. It seems to me that if these comments should be covered at all they would best be covered in the article about Jóźwik, where they are covered in less detail than they are here. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay, here are some extra sources if you're worried about WP:V issues/her not having actually stated that: [3][4]. Regarding the placement in this section, it seems that sources do connect Semenya to the controversial statements made by the other runners, both regarding hyperandrogenism and race. Lynsey Sharp's comments were also about all three of the competitors above her, as they applied equally to Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui (silver and bronze medallists in that race) as well. It seems both Sharp's and Jóźwik's comments both received enough coverage in connection with Semenya and make sense to include. Regarding Joanna Jóźwik's article, I mean they're mentioned over there, but it's a tiny article – probably not too much could be said about it without making that one incident dominate her entire page. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

XY Chromosomes - no evidence

I can’t find any independent evidence for this. It seems to be an assumption that some journalists have made and shared.

I believe it is an example of the so-called “Wikipedia effect” of circular reporting.

It’s not something that Caster Semenya has openly shared and so should be removed under BLP. 62.250.139.134 (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, the start of it all seem to be from Sydney Morning Herald

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/secret-of-semenyas-sex-stripped-bare-20090911-gdtpxh.html

https://www.smh.com.au/world/world-champ-semenyas-gender-mystery-solved-20090911-fjjq.html

Which sources range from IAAF told us to "trust me bro". The IAAF multiple times said that they couldn't confirm or deny the articles (probably because of court rulings). In fact, even their spokesman said they didn't even analyze the results yet by the time the smh article was out:

https://www.espn.com/olympics/trackandfield/news/story?id=4463535

Olympic articles all talk about DSDs, not about 46XY 5-ARC:

https://olympics.com/en/news/caster-semenya-cas-testosterone-decision-iaaf

https://olympics.com/en/news/caster-semenya-world-athletics-dsd-regulations-european-court-human-rights

https://olympics.com/en/news/semenya-niyonsaba-wambui-what-is-dsd-iaaf-regulations

A document from Court of Arbitration for Sport does mention 46XY, but no 5-ARC or internal testes:

https://olympics.com/en/news/caster-semenya-cas-testosterone-decision-iaaf

In fact, regulations now seem to affect pretty much anyone with high levels of testosterone (so it affects DSDs in general, not only 46XY).

+ As other people said, there's the case for BLP issues due to privacy (the exact DSD would have been mentioned in a private court document) and tons of misinformation (daily telegraph article) on the topic.

I'm not sure on exactly what should stay or not due to BLP, but both the 5-ARC and internal testes claims lack evidence.

ZorasSon (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that apparently a change was made and reverted already, so I'll tag the users responsible so that we can reach a consensus.

User:TWM03

User:Solarsagittarius

ZorasSon (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me @ZorasSon. Inclusion of information in Wikipedia is based on verifiability, which in the context of Wikipedia means that it is taken from reliable sources. There are currently five reliable sources in the article backing up (most of) the claim made. If you have a reliable source that contradicts the statement then it would be useful to share it, otherwise the criticism of the existing sources is original research.

That said, looking through the sources none of them explicitly states that Semenya's high testosterone levels are caused by internal testes, so that claim should be removed.

The argument from the IP account that including this information violates WP:BLP guidelines on privacy is flawed in my opinion, because it is something that is well-known about the subject, reported by multiple reliable sources and relevant to the career she is notable for. Furthermore, a statement from Semenya sharing information about it would not be an appropriate source as it does not fall under the limited scope of WP:ABOUTSELF. However, it is correct to say that private court documents should not be referenced for privacy reasons.

Not sure which Telegraph article you are referring to when you brought up misinformation. TWM03 (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply @TWM03, I wasn't sure about BLP guidelines so that helps a lot.

The misinformation part was about a (now deleted) daily telegraph article about Semenya, you can find the archive of it here:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090917000941/http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/semenya-has-no-womb-or-ovaries/story-e6frexni-1225771672245

If I remember right, they created a new articled and corrected some parts, but the old one was still being used by some news outlets and the wikipedia article. I think it used to be in the page in the past, but it was removed (so the current sources look fine to me).

ZorasSon (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the statement about internal testes. Since we are not using the Telegraph article I don't think there is anything that needs to be done to address that. TWM03 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

We should absolutely not be adding commentary about Semenya's genitalia to the article, regardless of whether it is sourced or not. The BLP policy requires us to take human dignity and personal privacy into account. It seems reasonable that the article explain that Semenya is intersex, has a disorder of sex development, and has elevated levels of testosterone (as this is the cause of the controversy discussed in the article), but it's a completely unnecessary invasion of privacy to discuss Semenya's genitalia in the article (including whether or not she has testes). Even discussing Semenya's chromosomes and specific medical condition seems like it crosses the line to me, as she has not disclosed these herself and they are not necessary to explain the controversy. I would favor removing them per "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Nosferattus (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Describing Semenya as having "elevated levels of testosterone" and linking that to the page on hyperandrogenism seems incorrect and maybe like it's leftover from an earlier version of the article when less was known. Semenya's is not a case of XX hyperandrogenism, and normal XY testosterone levels in someone who is XY are not really "elevated." It might be better to say "natural/standard heterogametic levels of testosterone." SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's incorrect to say that Semenya has hyperandrogenism (and there are numerous reliable sources that say this). Saying that Semenya is simply a person "who is XY" is a misleading oversimplification. Semenya is not a man; she is an intersex woman. Her hyperandrogenism is one of her intersex variations, as is her chromosome arrangement. Just because one is caused by the other doesn't invalidate it. Nosferattus (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen, most of the sources that refer to Semenya's condition as "hyperandrogenism" were published before the more recent revisions to World Athletics' regulations since 2019. Newer sources would refer to the DSD condition. Because less was known at the time the older sources were published, Semenya's condition could be conflated with PCOS hyperandrogenism, as Vaticidalprophet also notes below. The very construction of the word "hyperandrogenism" implies an unnaturally high (hyper-) level of androgens, but there is nothing unnaturally high about Semenya's androgen levels (unlike a woman with PCOS). ---- SJy2iI83VJ (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nosferattus on this. Some coverage of her testosterone levels is unavoidable, as it actually has a bearing on her athletic performance, and it is reasonable to mention that she is intersex, but anything about genitals is prurient speculation. DanielRigal (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Medical privacy

As far as I have been able to tell, Caster Semenya has never publicly discussed or disclosed the specific details of her intersex medical condition. The only thing she has confirmed is that she has high testosterone (i.e. hyperandrogenism). A few sources, however, have reported on Semenya's medical condition in great detail, discussing her chromosomes, genitals, and genetic abnormalities. This information is generally attributed to "gender tests" or the IAAF/World Athletics. Semenya and her legal team have complained that the IAAF has violated her privacy, but I have to wonder if we are not also guilty of violating her privacy. According to WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy… Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified."

It seems to me that there is no compelling reason that we need to include detailed discussion of Semenya's medical condition in our article. It is sufficient to say that Semenya is intersex (i.e. has differences in sex development) and has hyperandrogenism, which is why she has been barred from various sports competitions. Otherwise, I don't think we're taking our commitment to privacy seriously. What are other people's thoughts on this? Nosferattus (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Came here from WT:MED. As someone who has edited a lot on subjects some editors describe as intersex disorders (I generally don't), and has a working knowledge of actual intersex disorders due to topic overlap: the prior discussions on this talk make a strong argument (not through anything they intentionally argue, but through their statements and assumptions) for why we should describe what Semenya has to the best of our ability, and in particular what makes it very different to other things that might seem surface similar to a non-expert. Wikipedia is many things, but the first of those things is 'educational', and given how high-profile the subject is and how covered her intersex status has been, she will very likely be the first time ever many readers have heard of an XY woman, or a hyperandrogenic woman, or an intersex woman. These three categories all describe many things that differ radically from each other, and saying without context that Semenya has 'hyperandrogenism' allows the reader to mistake her situation for comparable to women with PCOS, or 'is XY' to mistake her situation for women with CAIS, or 'is intersex' to mistake it for any of the incredibly expansive lists of 'intersex conditions' some editors insist on keeping in articles (and some advocacy groups construct). This is a serious risk that we need to take pains to avoid, because of the pronounced misconceptions it can lead to about the health, physical state, sporting expectations, development, etc of people with extremely different situations to hers.

This is different to just stating something in the article like 'she has testes' -- this would also be a mistake, because that would yet further allow such mistaken assumptions (consider the logic: Semenya is an XY woman with testes, CAIS women are XY and have testes, thus women with CAIS are like Semenya). Rather, we should describe to the best of our ability what her actual diagnosis/etc is, if possible, with a link to relevant articles for further reading, and some concise but meaningful description of what that means for people who don't follow the link, and ideally some statement (footnoted?) on more common conditions it is not like to avoid misleading readers who see similar-looking things. Vaticidalprophet 00:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, would it be fair to summarize your thought as "Leaving her open to ignorant speculation is not 'protecting' her?"

For myself, I wonder why some of these details are in the lead but not in the body of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Anything in the lead should be in the body, unless it shouldn’t be in the article at all. Sometimes things get added to the lead by people who don't care about the body and just want to make a sensational claim up front without covering it properly. It is possible that such claims have got in and not all of them been removed. For that reason, my first thought is to remove such material unless it is pretty obviously legitimate, in which case it it should be copied or moved into the body as appropriate.

As for the "ignorant speculation" angle, my thought is that ignorant speculators gonna speculate ignorantly, often in deliberate bad faith, and there isn't anything we can do about that except to make sure that we are not providing them any undue help in their sordid endeavours. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be about half of a reasonable summary, with the second half being "it's also not protecting other people who aren't like her but could be surface-level mistaken for it by a bad summary". I don't really buy the "people are going to assume weird things no matter what we do" argument -- it's an educational project, the whole point is to inform people what we can so they can understand to the best of their ability. These subjects are also ones where what looks like deliberate-bad-faith can easily be serious misunderstanding, and where people are noted for changing their views in all sorts of directions depending what information they've been provided.

We also have the specific consideration that 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency is remarkably unlike any of the conditions that are most commonly quoted as causing hyperandrogenism, female-birth-phenotype XY karyotypes, or unspecified 'intersex conditions'. It's seriously misleading to say Semenya is representative of women who fall under any of those categories, and has real implications for the lives, self-esteem, sports participation, expectations, etc of people those apply to. Vaticidalprophet 19:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

agree w/ Vaticidalprophet--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Just adding a link to a related discussion that started for (I think) unrelated reasons: Talk:List_of_intersex_Olympians#Suggestion_gathering:_improvements_to_coverage_of_intersex_and_DSD_athletes. Kingsif (talk) 06:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Intersex

At Intersex we say, "There is no clear consensus definition of intersex and no clear delineation of which specific conditions qualify an individual as intersex." That article includes a table titled "Prevalences of various conditions that have been called intersex" listing about 40 different conditions, and different "definitions" of "intersex" might include or exclude these conditions inconsistently. I believe that Wikipedia should not describe any individual, especially a living individual, as "intersex", unless that individual specifically identifies as such, of course per reliable sources. Admittedly, there is a complication for individuals notable as sports contestants who are participate in competitions that are regulated by bodies that use the term "intersex". I am not sure how that applies in this case, but other than that, I don't think Wikipedia should use a term that is so loosely defined. Also, the reference for "intersex" is an article in Feminist Studies, which is a peer-reviewed academic journal, but I do not think it is necessarily a reliable source for a condition that, after all, doesn't even have a clear consensus definition. Moreover, would the definition used in 2009 be considered the same today? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The definition of a word is a social fact, rather than a biological one, so Feminist Studies is probably an appropriate journal for information about definitions and who 'counts' as a woman and who doesn't.

Your comment suggests that we should treat intersex as a term of personal Self-concept or self-labeled Identity (social science), rather than a description that other people (e.g., doctors, researchers, sports organizations) use to describe how they see the person's body. To generalize, if an adult is significantly atypical in some physical respect (e.g., taller, stronger, faster), but thinks of themselves as typical, then you would not want us to describe them as being atypical, because that doesn't express their current beliefs and understandings about themselves, and you see their self-identification as being more relevant and important than what other people think of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Biological male or female

Regarding all the controversy around Caster; i find it strange that in Caster's early Life it isn't mentioned whether Caster was born male or female or intersex. It should be stated RickyBlair668 (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Semenya's DSD "5α-Reductase 2 deficiency" is an exclusively male syndrome. Semenya however, was observed at birth as female, and continues to identify as female. 2d32d23ff322 (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Genetic male

Hi Jwslubbock (talk · contribs), I reverted your edit because as mentioned in my edit summary, "genetic" and "biological" are not the same thing. Your point is correct that chromosomes do not entirely determine an individual's reproductive anatomy. However, "genetic male" and "genetic female" are scientific terms to indicate whether a Y chromosome is present or absent, and the "genetic male" language is commonly used with reference to 5-ARD:

• "In this syndrome genetic males contain normal male internal structures including testes, but exhibit ambiguous or female external genitalia at birth" [5]
• "Genetic males with 5-ARD are born with genital ambiguity that varies in severity from small phallus to completely female looking genitalia" [6]
• "The T:DHT ratio after hCG stimulation in a prepubertal genetic male with 5α-reductase deficiency was clearly elevated (>27)." [7]
• "People with this condition are genetically male" [8]

Astaire (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand why people might be getting a bit revert-happy, given the current craziness on both news media and social media about athletes with intersex conditions. Everybody is shouting, and the people who know the least are shouting the loudest, leading various people to come here and make changes. Reverting to the status quo version was the safest thing to do in that environment. Having said that, I do think that changing "genetic males" to "people" (diff) was actually a minor improvement in this context, and I'd like us to bring it back. The phrase "genetic males" might not be readily understood by all readers and any misunderstanding at that point could cause them not to correctly understand what comes immediately after, where the condition is explained in more specific terms. Referring to people as "people" is never wrong. It's just a bit vague. In a case such as this, where the vagueness is going to be explicitly resolved in the next few sentences, it is safer to just say "people" and let the reader read on to find out exactly which people we mean. DanielRigal (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi DanielRigal, I have to disagree. "Genetic male" is not a difficult concept to understand ("presence of a Y chromosome"), and can be made even clearer e.g. by linking to a page such as Sex-determination system, where that phrase currently redirects. Adding clarification is always preferable to introducing vagueness. The "genetic male" language helps explain the complexities of this condition in terms of chromosomes (male), external genitalia (ambiguous or female), gonads and hormones (male), and socialization (often female). As I mentioned, WP:MEDRS sources frequently describe those affected as "genetic males"—the above are just the first four I found. The "with XY chromosomes" part is important as well because it distinguishes 5-ARD from other genetically male intersex conditions such as XXY. Astaire (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)