SEMENYA jogs 800m in 1:55

8sepulchre8 wrote:

KudzuRunner wrote:

. Running is being. Running is a way to be who YOU are. We all get that. So we should get that when the person doing the running is Caster.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have compassion for the women that Caster is beating like a drum. We should. It does mean that Caster isn't trying to be evil, just trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Yeah .. if "making the best of a bad situation" means winning because you have an unfair advantage over your competitors. Potentially winning Olympic medals because of an unfair advantage over your competitors.

I think that few people think Caster is "trying to be evil." She's simply enjoying the unjust benefit of being able to compete as a "woman" (however that is currently scientifically defined -- and yes, it HAS TO be defined as a matter of fairness.)

No one says Caster shouldn't run. Run, Caster, run.

Run against men and run the times of a very good, but not internationally exceptional high school boy. Run against state meet winners.

But when she runs against competitors where her "right" to run deprives them of justice and an even playing field, I would uphold their rights above your described need for her to express her "being" by running against competitors who have a disadvantage.

RossTucker wrote:

In the interests of trying to offer discussion and debate on this issue, an interview I did with Joanna Harper recently:

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

I think the fundamental issue is this:

We have a separate category for women because without it, no women would even make the Olympic Games (with the exception of equestrian). Most of the women's world records, even doped, lie outside the top 5000 times run by men. Radcliffe's marathon WR, for instance, is beaten by between 250 and 300 men per year. Without a women's category, elite sport would be exclusively male.

That premise hopefully agreed, we then see that the presence of the Y-chromosome is THE single greatest genetic "advantage" a person can have. That doesn't mean that all men outperform all women, but it means that for elite sport discussion, that Y-chromosome, and specifically the SRY gene on it, which directs the formation of testes and the production of Testosterone, is a key criteria on which to separate people into categories.

Now, for various biological reasons, and I'll follow the post above up with another on the specific science of this issue, sometimes that testosterone doesn't quite "do its job", and that is when we find ourselves dealing with an athlete like Semenya.

She is NOT a man. And it is enormously disrespectful to call her "it", or "he". Nor should any of your wrath or frustration be directed towards her. She's running per the rules that were changed by CAS, and it is they who should shoulder the responsibility for the mess that is the women's 800m.

So going back to the premise that women's sport is the PROTECTED category, and that this protection must exist because of the insurmountable and powerful effects of testosterone, my opinion on this is that it is fair and correct to set an upper limit for that testosterone, which is what the sport had before CAS did away with it.

The advantage enjoyed by a Semenya is not the same as the one enjoyed by say, Usain Bolt, or LeBron James, or Michael Phelps, because we don't compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber, or height, or foot size (pick your over simplification for performance here). So Semenya has a genetic advantage, by virtue of A) having a Y-chromosome and testes, and B) being unable to use that T and/or one of its derivatives enough to have developed fully male.

In that regard, if you approached it from the other direction, you could, relatively accurately, say that Semenya has a disadvantage compared to other males with XY and testosterone, because unlike them she cannot fully use T (and/or a derivative - depends on the exact condition).

however, as it stands, her "advantage" is seen and responded to, rather than the "disadvantage" and she competes as a woman. It means that she identifies as a woman, is female, but my contention and the thing that sport might have to address is whether someone who identifies as one gender is necessarily able to compete as that gender.

That's where the hyperandrogenic guidelines tried to find a compromise - they set what was a very generous upper limit of 10, which is much higher than most females, but alas, CAS in their wisdom decided to do away with it.

Semenya, and a few others, are now providing how ludicrous CAS' decision was.

One final point - there is a position here, made by a good few people who I really respect, which holds that Semenya and others did not choose this, they have not cheated, and it would be inhumane/unethical and violation of human rights to force upon someone a medical intervention that is not for health reasons, and to prevent them from participating in sport if they don't.

That's an argument I don't agree with, but I can see that people may hold, and are entitled to. It's not wrong, and it is possible to have two disagreeing positions without being wrong on either. What is wrong is to compare Semenya's advantage to Bolt's, or Phelps', because their genetic "luck" doesn't put them into a different category, and also, Semenya's "advantage" is actually a "disadvantage" to competing, as I said.

Final point, Semenya will run the 400 and 800 in Rio, and she will win both. It will cause a Sh!Tstorom of note, and I'm South African, so that will be a lot of fun (said nobody ever) and arguments. So this is a long post, sorry, and the article where I interview Harper is long, but really, this is going to be a big issue, and it pays to know a little before leaping into it! Besides, I thin kit's a really interesting subject.

Ross

Women's athletic events wrote:

What I see is that this is very simple. Women's events are for women who are XX and 100 percent female only. Anyone who is not XX and 100 percent female is not allowed to compete in women's events. This is a very important and vital issue regarding women's athletics.

Outside of athletes and in personal life, then people can live as they choose and call themselves anything that they wish, provided such choices are not used to deceive or take advantage of others. However that is not the same as publicly competing in athletics. To be fair to all women in athletics events, only 100 percent XX females who meet ALL the criteria for being a biological female can be allowed to compete in the women's events.

Wiki looker wrote:

OK, that is a fine solution. I was responding to the posters insisting she's a dude. She's neither male nor female as we traditionally define them.

Women's athletic events wrote:

Women's athletic events wrote:

What I see is that this is very simple. Women's events are for women who are XX and 100 percent female only. Anyone who is not XX and 100 percent female is not allowed to compete in women's events. This is a very important and vital issue regarding women's athletics.

Outside of athletes and in personal life, then people can live as they choose and call themselves anything that they wish, provided such choices are not used to deceive or take advantage of others. However that is not the same as publicly competing in athletics. To be fair to all women in athletics events, only 100 percent XX females who meet ALL the criteria for being a biological female can be allowed to compete in the women's events.

Wiki looker wrote:

OK, that is a fine solution. I was responding to the posters insisting she's a dude. She's neither male nor female as we traditionally define them.

Thank you very much. I'm glad we can help this issue to advance.