Thread by @KirstiMiller30

SUPER IMPORTANT: for ‘transitioned, transgender and gender diverse athletes’; be aware @wada_ama TUEC policies ‘hormone replacement’ no science/research to policies; we know putting your longterm health and safety on ‘field of play’ at risk.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK PROTECT YOU:

Ask @wada_ama through athlete info line for ‘athlete research’ to TUEC for your own ref.

WADA will not be able to provide it. Therefore NADO doesn’t know either.

Get informed about your longterm health.

@iocmedia @shiftproject

#safeguarding

@wada_ama’s mischaracterization of WPATH Standards of Care (SOC); only developed for indiv therapeutic care of mental health; never for sport/longterm health putting athletes at risk of catastrophic harm and injury.

@iocmedia @shiftproject

#safeguarding

WADA Transgender Therapeutic Use Exemption Policy, the document to ‘support decisions of TUE Committee’s’ is unscientifically created,

wada-ama.org/en/resources/t…

moreover to those who are experts in this field of gender and human physiology as it relates to transition, clearly shows WADA’s lack of understanding of transition(s) of the human body, let alone the ethical medical concerns that transcend for XY female athletes,

as noted in Toronto during the HR case of Kristen Worley the impact of ‘complete androgen deprivation of the human physiology

crossingthelinesport.com/story/kristen-…

as shown in this document by @WADA that shows it from a glaring perspective, the document marked no reference whatsoever to androgens for XY female athletes. Which top experts in this field, the longterm anatomical impact is exceptional,

causing over two dozen major contraindications to the athlete, eventually making sport let alone high performance sport impossible.

We know too, that androgens play over (two hundred) daily functions in the human physiology separate of the sex of the body.

By @WADA through policy illustrating not mentioning testosterone in the TUE process for XY female, a lack of understanding of one how I androgens work and the role within the human body, secondly how it equates to every unique individual including XY females,

and the necessity for androgens to assume a proper level of health, let alone engagement in any level of sport participation.

As international experts confirm: The WADA and IAAF and other Ifs with blanket T rules do not have even the right starting point. Nothing to do with volume testosterone. It is about chromosomes, androgen receptors and genes.

We know separate of the bodies sex, there is 40,000 gene types and 100 receptor types. When combined together, make infinite possibilities.

WADA did not do any research to develop this document and by example and to explain further; WADA has a policy and TUE document for XY males who are living with ‘hypogonadism’ due to the health issues of an individuals gonad’s inability to generate naturally a healthy level –

it is recognized an XY chromosome body is seen as unhealthy <12nmol/L or less. A surgically transitioned XY female as they lose the ability to produce natural occurring testosterone, falls into a range of 0.4nmol/L.

Which we know too, the individual falls into complete androgen deprivation eventually into the position of that would equate a XX female = who had had a complete hysterectomy including her gonads.

We can be assured, one this is extremely unhealthy – Moreover, and most important, we can be assured that there are no women either XX & or XY competing internationally like this long term.

This is not for anyone a desired state and for the participation high performance sport eventually impossible to participate.

It is very concerning WADA would not consider this as the global body of sport and making such policy for TUE committees to use as a guide would not be considered.

But illustrates one a possible bias, but certainly a greater concern that there was no research and peer review when developing this guideline document in the first place.

wada-ama.org/en/resources/t…

As a condition and prerequisite of sport inclusion and participation for a young athlete, further concerning knowing the contraindications and the longterm impact on a young athletes physiology and broader health issues, is concerning of a global body approving such a process

as global recommendation within sport and the ethical and legal implications.

Lastly, which I hope further supports this notion and broader concerns. This policy document discusses and further illustrates the broader concerns of the document published; as it relates to ‘XX men’.

We know the XX chromosome body separate of sex, androgen receptors are highly sensitive to androgens, due to nature and the the biological reasons associated to reproduction.

It takes 6-10times the same level of androgens depending on the uptake abilities of an individuals receptors who is XY chromosomes to someone who is XX to equate the same level of body function and ones health daily – separate of sport and development.

Again, separate of the sex of the body. So for an XX male, under the WADA TUE guidelines as published is allowing an ‘already healthy body’ at 1-3nmol/L levels to increase their levels to a natural occurring XY male levels.

We are now seeing, for the first time in several sport, XX males out performing XY males in ‘high performance endurance sport’ for the first time.

These athletes are in-fact legally doping, and in terms of the XX chromosome physiology an example of high levels of testosterone and what a ‘doping XX body looks like and performs’.

These athletes need these high levels of testosterone to help with transition over a 2-4 year period, they do not require long-term, as they are already healthy at lower level as already.

These are performances that are exceeding because solely of doping, and not having the sciences in policy as we are discussing.

Moreover the reality is a myth in terms athlete performance and transitioned athletes, in-fact 180 degrees of the medical and scientific truth.

@wada has assumed two things; one that transition in either direction is the same, secondly that XX females and XY females through transition are the same; they are not and is like ‘comparing apples to oranges’.

Of course, if the proper research had been done prior to policy this would have known this as a ‘starting point’.

End