| Title |
Impossible “Choices”: The Inherent Harms of Regulating Women’s Testosterone in Sport
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-018-9876-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katrina Karkazis, Morgan Carpenter |
| Abstract |
In April 2018, the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) released new regulations placing a ceiling on women athletes' natural testosterone levels to "ensure fair and meaningful competition." The regulations revise previous ones with the same intent. They require women with higher natural levels of testosterone and androgen sensitivity who compete in a set of "restricted" events to lower their testosterone levels to below a designated threshold. If they do not lower their testosterone, women may compete in the male category, in an intersex category, at the national level, or in unrestricted events. Women may also challenge the regulation, whether or not they have lowered their testosterone, or quit sport. Irrespective of IAAF's stated aims, the options forced by the new regulations are impossible choices. They violate dignity, threaten privacy, and mete out both suspicion and judgement on the sex and gender identity of the athletes regulated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 9% |
| Australia | 5 | 7% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Jamaica | 1 | 1% |
| Burkina Faso | 1 | 1% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 51% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 52 | 76% |
| Scientists | 13 | 19% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 81 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 6% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 5% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 38 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2024.
All research outputs
#699,827
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#20
of 675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,148
of 325,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.