Talk:Sex verification in sports

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 19 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SarahHowe1971, Rebecaaaharringtonnn (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Krissydraper.

— Assignment last updated by Rgxo (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality

I have added a disputed neutrality template to this article per WP:NPOV.

As another editor has pointed out in a previous discussion, this article reads as a one-sided opinion piece in opposition to sex verification.

The article mentions no or minimal arguments in support of sex verification, in contrast to multitude of arguments in opposition. It uses weasel words (MOS:WEASEL) when attributing some of these arguments: e.g. "Scholars question", "commentators question", "others opposed" and "has been regarded by many". MOS:SCAREQUOTES are also used: e.g. considered "unfair" , not being "true" women and "unfemineinity". Expressions of MOS:DOUBT are used when the basis of sex verification is discussed: "The protocols claimed", "perceived to give unfair advantage".

Factual assertations in the article are often sourced to commanteries, essays or other opinionated sources. While this can be acceptable, the fact that the majority of the sources seem to oppose and no sources appear to support sex verification further implies bias in the article itself.

86.50.119.75 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• You might want to have a closer look at WP:NPOV, in particular the sub-sections of WP:NPOVHOW. Do you have any specific reliable sources in mind that "appear to support sex verification", and which could be used in the article? --bonadea contributions talk 09:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I see no reason in the policy why my above concerns would be wrong. Could you more specifically tell what you disagree with? I think you have also misunderstood my point about the sources. I am not advocating adding more biased sources from either side. For factual assertations neutral reputable sources would be best. In any case sources are not the main problem with this article.

  Further examples of bias from the article:

  A scholar questions whether men with androgen levels similar to those of women will be permitted to participate in the women's category or instead be granted the opportunity to increase their androgen levels to those of other males. This is the logical and fair result how policies using functional testosterone to decide eligibility to compete as a female or a male work for women.

  Gender verification impacts numerous dimensions of athletes' lives, including unfair disqualification in sporting events, identity crisis and confusion, social isolation, depression, and suicide.

  Best, 86.50.119.75 (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 86.50 that when citing a single source/paper, we should attribute that view to the author(s). That being said, if a view is widely cited or is the predominant one among scholars, then "scholars" is perfectly fine—but it should really be backed up with multiple citations.

However, I do think that 86.50 misunderstands our NPOV policy in general. It doesn't mean that articles need to be "neutral" in presenting both sides or that sources need to be "neutral", but that we, as editors, must neutrally summarize the significant viewpoints found in reliable sources. Sources can be biased (per WP:BIASED) and this doesn't make them unreliable or wrong. If the majority of reliable sources are opposed to sex verification, then our article should reflect that. If we're missing significant reliable sources that are in favor of sex verification, then we should include them. (This would not be "adding more biased sources", it would be making the article compliant with NPOV.) If the reliable sources in favor of sex verification are not significant, then it may be appropriate to exclude them entirely, per WP:UNDUE.

My limited understanding of the subject is that most reliable sources are opposed to sex verification, and for all sorts of reasons. If that's the case, then this article is neutral, but could probably use some cleanup. 86.50, if you know of sources that counter those being used in the article, you'll need to bring them here for discussion. These would likely need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Likewise, if you think sources are being misused in the article, you'll need to be specific and mention which ones and why. Woodroar (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that sources discussing policy and public opinion need to be MEDRS-compliant. Sources about efficacy or (medical) effects of sex verification methods of course would.

Speaking of MEDRS, this article has a problem with sourcing some of those claims from non-compliant sources:

"Overall, a great amount of research has been conducted proving that both hormones and chromosomes should not be held responsible for depicting characteristics of one's biological sex. While hormones can be used in correlation with biological sex, they cannot solely portray the difference between an individual being male or female sex." [1]

• This claim of medical consensus is sourced from an essay in Women's Studies in Communication (not a medical journal, or even neutral).

"Moreover, the requirement to lower testosterone levels can have adverse impacts on athlete's health, as side effects may include: excessive thirst, urination and electrolyte imbalances, disruption of carbohydrate metabolism, headache, fatigue, nausea, hot flushes, and liver toxicity. ..."[2]

• This is sourced from an argumentative article in Social & Legal Studies - a journal with "commitment to feminist, anti-colonial and socialist economic perspectives to the study of law". Again, not a medical journal or remotely MEDRS-compliant.

"By contradicting her sex they were violating laws by international and national genetic privacy laws." [3]

• The editor adding this seems to have copied the phrase "international and national genetic privacy laws" from the abstract, but the paper does not claim those were violated

I think this for example [4] could be a very good source for more balanced commentary about reasons behind sex verification. Testosterone limits are described there as "complicated, highly charged question involving fair play, gender identity, biology and human rights", and it has some nice quotes from both sides of the debate.

Best, 86.50.118.50 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this NPOV dispute could have been avoided had you attempted to resolve some of the issues you've identified instead of tagging this article and resurrecting a three-year-old dispute. Here are some suggestions for resolving the examples of purportedly non-MEDRS sources:

• Example One: You could tag the cite with {{unreliable source?}}, if that's your position.
• Example Two: The source cited to in the article itself cites from several MEDRDS-compliant journals, including the BMJ and the American Journal of Bioethics. You could review those cites and add them, since they are MEDRS.
• Example Three: The paragraph with that sentence begins: "A scholar questions whether men with androgen levels similar to those of women will be permitted to participate in the women's category or instead be granted the opportunity to increase their androgen levels to those of other males." The paragraph then goes on to explain the argument in the paper cited to, which is correctly described in the abstract. I agree with you that the paragraph is inartfully drafted you could likely improve it.

Finally, as for the NY Times story, it appears to highlight some alternative arguments, as you suggested. You could add that in the appropriate place in the article to add further context. voorts 03:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed neutrality tag, because I don't think there's much of a real dispute here. This appears to just be 86.50's misunderstanding of the NPOV policy. It doesn't mean every article has to be written with a view from nowhere, and in fact explicitly prohibits that. Instead, it means that articles must follow the sources, whatever they say. If the sources are very critical of a practice, as they are here, we say so. Loki (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

References