Here we go again. Women athletes with the intersex condition hyperandrogenism – who naturally produce more testosterone than is typical for women – are at the centre of extreme and unfair scrutiny at the Rio Olympics.
The spotlight is on them once more after India’s sprinter successfully challenged a rule that required anyone with this condition to reduce their testosterone levels below a threshold set by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) which equates to the lower end of the typical range for men. As a result, Chand and other athletes with hyperandrogenism can now compete regardless of testosterone levels.
Chand . Now, though, , whose times have been improving in past months and is odds-on favourite to take gold in the 800 metres final on Sunday.
Advertisement
Semenya is no stranger to unwelcome attention. In 2009 she faced questions about her right to compete when she won at the World Athletics Championship in Berlin. The IAAF rule followed in 2011.
With debate raging, many people are focused on the question of whether testosterone actually confers a competitive advantage. But the real question should be: if it does, so what?
“We love the idea of a level playing field, but it is a myth”
Elite sport is built on the back of inequality. We love the idea of a level playing field, but it is a myth. Of the 207 nations competing in Rio, 75 had never won a medal before 2016. Wealthy, powerful countries dominate the Olympics, while conflicted, war-torn, impoverished countries simply lack the resources to promote sport to the level that will produce Olympic champions. That’s a clear disparity that raises little outcry.
But what we’re talking about in the case of hyperandrogenism is an innate condition that potentially enhances athletic performance. And, as scientists are just beginning to understand, elite sport is riddled with similar endowments.
Researchers have found associations between physical performance and more than . More than 20 of those relate to elite athleticism. These performance-enhancing variations can affect height, blood flow, metabolic efficiency, muscle mass, muscle fibres, bone structure, pain threshold, fatigue resistance, power, speed, endurance, susceptibility to injury, psychological aptitude, and respiratory and cardiac functions, to name just some.
We don’t disqualify athletes with these types of predispositions. We celebrate them.
With seven Olympic medals, Finland’s Eero Mäntyranta, for example, is among the all-time greats of Nordic skiing. It is a sport that requires incredible stamina – a trait assisted by an abundance of red blood cells, which carry oxygen to the muscles. That’s why so many endurance athletes try to boost their red blood cell count by training at high altitude, sleeping in altitude chambers, or through illegal measures like blood doping or taking a synthetic version of the hormone erythropoietin (EPOR).
Mäntyranta, who died in 2013, didn’t need any of that. , associated with a variation in the EPOR gene, which caused his body to produce 65 per cent more red blood cells than the average male. David Epstein, author of , calls Mäntyranta’s EPOR variant a “gold medal mutation”.
How is this different from a woman’s body that naturally produces more testosterone? Why is primary familial and congenital polycythaemia considered a genetic gift and hyperandrogenism a disqualifying curse?
Unless athletic authorities want to take on all conditions that might result in an unfair advantage – biological, genetic, social or otherwise – it seems arbitrary to focus on testosterone in female athletes.
is associate professor of kinesiology at Pennsylvania State University. This comment is adapted from her article on
