Caster Semenya is rolling down under!! She's already run 51 and 2:00! Will the courts decide the women's 800 in Rio?

Balls are round, therefore they roll.

Let's help push the Semenya video over the 1million mark. That would be cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-bqET22vEU

It's pretty much over for women's track.

100% women will have to move to something else.

unless they change the rule again.

Semenya is considering doubling in Rio accorrding to a report from South Africa

https://twitter.com/wesbotton/status/712340114719023105

@wesbotton 7h7 hours ago

Caster Semenya says she will consider attempting the 400m/800m double at the Rio Olympics. She has qualified for both

big 800 fan wrote:

why don't we create a third olympics. We have the regular olympics, the paralympics and hyperandrogenism olympics.

We just need to restrict the women's events to those without a Y-chromosome. Anyone with a Y-chromosome must compete in an open class. It's so simple. And they did it in Worlds 2002. But for some reason it's politically incorrect. The losers are those without a Y-chromosome, i.e. REAL WOMEN, who have no chance competing against Y-chromosome humans.

Seeing Wambui running next to Wilson in the WIC semi made the distinction really clear. I was watching, and a friend who does not really follow the sport was nearby and stopped to watch a bit of it, and was really confused about whether this was the women's 800 (Wilson) or the men's. Basically, my friend wanted to know why that guy was running in the women's event, and why no one in charge had noticed this obvious problem with the competition. Unfortunately, I could not give an explanation that makes this sport -- in its current condition -- make any sense at all.

female athletics is a joke wrote:

big 800 fan wrote:

why don't we create a third olympics. We have the regular olympics, the paralympics and hyperandrogenism olympics.

We just need to restrict the women's events to those without a Y-chromosome. Anyone with a Y-chromosome must compete in an open class. It's so simple. And they did it in Worlds 2002. But for some reason it's politically incorrect. The losers are those without a Y-chromosome, i.e. REAL WOMEN, who have no chance competing against Y-chromosome humans.

I don't see it as politically correct. I don't how to explain it... Patriarchal perhaps? Maybe not the right word, but it's the opinion that males are perfectly formed, and those with any sort of ambiguity are women. You're not a man if the equipment isn't perfect. This is an insult to every woman, everywhere.

behold la wambui

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/28e75952424044088d05a4cfdce8229c/beijing-china-26th-aug-2015-kenyas-margret-nyairera-wambui-competes-f13926.jpg

So damn frustrating wrote:

female athletics is a joke wrote:

We just need to restrict the women's events to those without a Y-chromosome. Anyone with a Y-chromosome must compete in an open class. It's so simple. And they did it in Worlds 2002. But for some reason it's politically incorrect. The losers are those without a Y-chromosome, i.e. REAL WOMEN, who have no chance competing against Y-chromosome humans.

I don't see it as politically correct. I don't how to explain it... Patriarchal perhaps? Maybe not the right word, but it's the opinion that males are perfectly formed, and those with any sort of ambiguity are women. You're not a man if the equipment isn't perfect. This is an insult to every woman, everywhere.

If anything, you're not a woman if the equipment isn't perfect. Following your logic, that should be an insult to every man everywhere.

Athletes like the three of them dominating women's races was the prediction when this ridiculous court ruling came down and now we are already seeing the consequences. When is someone with an ounce of sense going to realize that allowing these athletes in the women's competition is even less fair than allowing doped up athletes. It is a disservice to women without this testosterone boost and hence is anti-feminist.

So damn frustrating wrote:

female athletics is a joke wrote:

We just need to restrict the women's events to those without a Y-chromosome. Anyone with a Y-chromosome must compete in an open class. It's so simple. And they did it in Worlds 2002. But for some reason it's politically incorrect. The losers are those without a Y-chromosome, i.e. REAL WOMEN, who have no chance competing against Y-chromosome humans.

I don't see it as politically correct. I don't how to explain it... Patriarchal perhaps? Maybe not the right word, but it's the opinion that males are perfectly formed, and those with any sort of ambiguity are women. You're not a man if the equipment isn't perfect. This is an insult to every woman, everywhere.

Wow!

You win dumbest post of the day.

Congratulations. On this forum, that really says something...

jjjjjj wrote:

Athletes like the three of them dominating women's races was the prediction when this ridiculous court ruling came down and now we are already seeing the consequences. When is someone with an ounce of sense going to realize that allowing these athletes in the women's competition is even less fair than allowing doped up athletes. It is a disservice to women without this testosterone boost and hence is anti-feminist.

Your libtard rating just fell one tenth of a point. Please leave letsrun or you may one day become a conservative.

female athletics is a joke wrote:

So damn frustrating wrote:

I don't see it as politically correct. I don't how to explain it... Patriarchal perhaps? Maybe not the right word, but it's the opinion that males are perfectly formed, and those with any sort of ambiguity are women. You're not a man if the equipment isn't perfect. This is an insult to every woman, everywhere.

If anything, you're not a woman if the equipment isn't perfect. Following your logic, that should be an insult to every man everywhere.

Not even close. We're talking about people born with internal testes, no uterus, no ovaries, a Y chromosome, and high testosterone levels competing with women. I don't think the gender of the person would be in question if they were simply born without a uterus. A woman who has a double mastectomy and a hysterectomy doesn't become a man.

You really have problems with this. The solution is to set fixed criteria for what constitutes a woman. Anyone who doesn't meet these criteria ends up in the open ("men") class. The open class is for all those who don't have "perfect" (your words) equipment. So anyone categorized as a man is not "perfect" (your words again). Men are the imperfect ones. And they should be feeling insulted (your logic). This is, if anything, matriarchical.

Don't try to wiggle away from your own stupid logic.

Who are you talking to ?

It's Jake from State Farm.

Hi Jake from State Farm, what are you wearing?

Khakis.

He's a guy.

Well she sounds hideous.

He's a guy.

female athletics is a joke wrote:

You really have problems with this. The solution is to set fixed criteria for what constitutes a woman. Anyone who doesn't meet these criteria ends up in the open ("men") class. The open class is for all those who don't have "perfect" (your words) equipment. So anyone categorized as a man is not "perfect" (your words again). Men are the imperfect ones. And they should be feeling insulted (your logic). This is, if anything, matriarchical.

Don't try to wiggle away from your own stupid logic.

I completely agree with this. How did we get on such different pages? I'm frustrated women are running against people with clear biological advantages. Being imperfect is not the insult. The insult is to women who are being grouped with biological men in competiton. There are also people born with intersex conditions who are certainly female. But the position shouldn't be that anyone with intersex conditions may, without question, run against women.

I also have a true human concern for children born with intersex conditions. It appears that the default position is to designate gender as female upon birth any many cultures. That may be the easiest choice for the child's life, but could and cause problems later on.

I wouldn't be so quick to shout "the sky is falling", as if the "regular" women no longer have a chance. There have always been a few manly-looking women on the scene, but they haven't exactly totally cleaned up. For instance, most of the top 100m women tend to be African/American/Caribbean, muscular maybe, but unmistakably women. Why haven't we seen any particularly questionable-gender gold medal women sprinters? And arguably the most sensational performances of the last couple of years in the track world have come from Genzebe Dibaba who, know matter what you think about her, definitely looks quite feminine. I'm not seeing any folks of questionable gender running sub-3:50 for 1500m. In fact, all the women at the top of their events of late, outside of the 800m sometimes, have looked like regular chicks. So, while I agree the gender thing is something to keep an eye on, maybe it just isn't as big of a dilemma as it is made out to be.

The court ruled that there was not enough evidence to prove that the extra testosterone produced naturally in these people leads to enhanced sports performance.

This seems strange to me as everyone seems to know the effects of testosterone, I thought it was well documented, certainly anecdotally anyway.

This mess really needs to be cleared up. A third gender category may be required.

But for me, on a physiological level, the different hormones levels can easily be decided by the IAAF for two separate competing categories. The issue at the moment is that most women with hyperandrogenism obviously identify as women, and so wish to compete as a woman. If we remove the 'male' and 'female' from the categories, for example A and B, the problem is gone. You simply compete in the category that relates to the hormonal levels in your blood, nobody can complain about not being recognised as the gender they want to be recognised as, because gender isn't relevant here.