First para *unfair to discriminate on physical appearance of sex parts.
First para *unfair to discriminate on physical appearance of sex parts.
lol thats really funny that we've believe "equality" in reference to blacks to be integration with whites in america, whereas "equality" in reference to women's sports has been to further divide them from men's.
You guys that are arguing against women's sports are obviously white males, which makes you all equally guilty of having owned slaves, invaded Iraq, and rich, pampered upbringings, therefore your opinions should not be listened to by anyone you white, male chauvinist pigs.
How are you defining gender in this case? For Semenya it is not something she chose it is how she is. (Quick aside for the person who said race isn't an issue because of Jelemo look at the post saying she was juicing.)
Slower women are just crying sour grapes because Semenya did well. By the IAAF's ambiguous standards (looking at genitals) Semenya is a woman. She could have chosen her racing attire better to look more feminine but that shouldn't be an issue. Fact is by previous test Semenaya passes. There are naive people who think that it is cut and dry about gender but it isn't.
But because of all the flack around Semenya she will never be able to race again internationally. Even if the IAAF came up with a definition that included her as a woman she wouldn't be able to race. That is without the bigoted "boycott" which really is much more of ducking a faster runner.
gwalkerruns wrote:
She is not a woman. She seems to be a combo. As I say this, I add it is not her fault.
HE is not a woman.
It is his fault when he tries to compete against women.
If you are going to argue that Caster Semenya meets the criteria for competing as a woman in the IAAF, then you are agreeing that a certain test is applicable to determine sexual identity. And if a certain test is applicable, then you must agree that it should be used to determine whether or not a person is the sex they claim to compete as.
The backdrop about the Semenya case has not so much been whether or not she meets the criteria, but the fact that she was singled out in testing. Somehow, its not ethical to test her sexual ID and then report those results to the world.
Well why should the IAAF have division in competition by sex if it is not allowed to use the sex test to determine sexual ID, and then report those results to let fans know that an individual was not a cheater?
The flap posted by Semenya is that her privacy was threatened. Well how were we supposed to stop anyone from complaining she was a cheater without telling people that a sex test did take place and that it was determined she was not a cheater?
This whole episode has been screaming sexist from the beginning. The only reason people are questioning whether or not Semenya was a woman was because she was a woman, and men want complete control over everything.
Men are feeling threatened by this woman's success, so they are trying to tear her down by saying she is a man. If Semenya had competed as a man, but looked female, no one would have questioned Semenya's ID because it claimed to be a man, and no man would discriminate against a fellow man.
This episode obviously shows that men are just trying to control women's lives and can't stand not wearing the pants. Our society will be horrible until one day men decide to treat woman equally.
Gosh, "insensitive," that's about the worst pile of crap ever posted on here. And I say that as a feminist.
It is precisely because I DO care about women's athletics that I consider the Semenya episode such an unfortunate one. This is the kind of thing that could completely undermine the athletic integrity of women's running.
This whole thing started because an Athletics South Africa official lied. He knew all about Semenya and has even warned that Semenya should not go to the World Championships in Berlin.
Charges of "racism" in this case are also ridiculous, considering that the ASA officials, the head of the IAAF, and the person who would get a gold medal if Semenya was DQed are all Black Africans.
937; wrote:
Slower women are just crying sour grapes because Semenya did well. By the IAAF's ambiguous standards (looking at genitals) Semenya is a woman. She could have chosen her racing attire better to look more feminine but that shouldn't be an issue. Fact is by previous test Semenaya passes. There are naive people who think that it is cut and dry about gender but it isn't.
That's not how the IAAF tests gender.
Equality for all wrote:
"Fair" solution has a point. If its not moral for us to have sport divisions based on physical skin differences such as color (eg negro leagues baseball), then it cannot be moral for us to have divisions based on the physical difference in skin appearance.
And if you are going to argue that its not fair to cut women's programs, then you are advocating that "separate, but equal" is a fair method of social division. And we can start creating the black track Olympics, yellow track olympics, mulatto track olympics, and white people can win the marathon again.
The difference, of course, is that skin color is a meaningless difference between people, while there are real physical differences between men and women. Because of those differences, male/female "integrated" sports would end up being almost completely male.
Semenya differs from "her" other women competitors because he/she possesses testicles. As such, it all comes down to this dichotomy:
Either
a) Having testicles gives him/her an advantage, therefore he/she should not be allowed to compete against testicle-free individuals (women),
or
b) Having testicles offers no competitive advantage, therefore ALL individuals should compete in one combined category, with no separate division owing to the presence or absence of testicles.
Which is it to be?
well, the big problem is that the IAAF has no established standards at all about what qualifies somebody to be a male or a female.
JARG wrote:
Equality for all wrote:"Fair" solution has a point. If its not moral for us to have sport divisions based on physical skin differences such as color (eg negro leagues baseball), then it cannot be moral for us to have divisions based on the physical difference in skin appearance.
And if you are going to argue that its not fair to cut women's programs, then you are advocating that "separate, but equal" is a fair method of social division. And we can start creating the black track Olympics, yellow track olympics, mulatto track olympics, and white people can win the marathon again.
The difference, of course, is that skin color is a meaningless difference between people, while there are real physical differences between men and women. Because of those differences, male/female "integrated" sports would end up being almost completely male.
Really? Color differences are meaningless? Then why on every standard test, college application, scholarship form, and job application is there a place to place "race" just as much as there is a place to put "sex?" Why are public employers and state schools required to fill out color quotas to demonstrate that they are "equal opportunity employers," for both sexes and colors? Why is race considered good enough for the Supreme Court to be labeled as a "bonus factor" when deciding eligibility for a position?
If race is such a meaningless division, then why are nationally recognized programs forced to take stats according to them and change their admission and hiring practices to demonstrate color equity?
Because our foolish ancestors thought that skin color made a difference, and we're still trying to deal with some of the consequences of that history (whether in the correct way or not is another question). That still doesn't mean that there's a rational case to be made for dividing up athletes by how much melanin they have in their skin.
There is a rational case to be made for separating men and women, because men and women have basic physical differences that keep the best female athletes from being competitive with the best male athletes. The consequence is that if you want to give women an opportunity to engage in competitive athletics you have to segregate competitive athletics by sex.
There is a rational case to be made for separating men and women, because men and women have basic physical differences that keep the best female athletes from being competitive with the best male athletes. The consequence is that if you want to give women an opportunity to engage in competitive athletics you have to segregate competitive athletics by sex.[/quote]
Are whites competitive against blacks in the sprints? when was the last time a white man was on the podium for the 100m dash? Could not a "rational" case be made that there are basic physical differences that keep the best white athletes from being competitive with the best black athletes in that event? Do we deem it worth creating a "white men's 100m dash" so we can "give white men an opportunity to engage in competitive 100m dashes?"
The point is that "basic physical differences that keep ____ from competing with ____" is a relative and arbitrary decision that somebody had to subjectively decide was bad enough to cause a split.
Did not great European anthropologists of the 1800s provide studies that demonstrated that blacks were inherently inferior to whites in mental and physical capacity, namely, that whites had guns and blacks didn't? But today we turn around and say "no, those studies were biased, and are not sound science."
Well, who's to say that the differences we have arbitrarily decided to divide sports up by are also based on bad, biased science, that will be disproved in the next 200 years?
Do you honestly think we (men) are threatened by Semnaya and that's why we don't think its right shes racing with women?
First of all Semanya is like a 1:56 800 meter runner, a 1:56 is not going to be "All State" at most high school state meets never mind competing with men who are running over 10 seconds faster for "it" in the 800. It's ridiculous to think the male gender is threatened by Caster. And if we were threatened would we really want her to race with men instead of women and possibly beat some of the best male runners in the world? Of course not, if we were truly threatened we wouldn't want to take that risk.
Caster is terrible for the women's sport, if she is allowed to compete as a women she is going to set ridiculous world womens records from everything from the 800 to the 5,000 at some point in time. If this happens the only person that will be able to break Caster's world records will be another "it".
Also If Caster Semanya is allowed to run internationally I can almost guarantee that other "he/shes" will pop out of the wood work and start setting world records in other events like sprints, jumps, throws. You can't stop them from competing if you allow Caster because it would be "unfair" . Eventually the majority of womens world records will not be held by actual women but by these "male/female" hybrids.
That "science" was based on simply looking at how Africa operated and basically saying "well this country isn't run as well as Europe and America so blacks most be inferior". It wasn't actually based on science but on observation of African run countries and tribes.
The man & women argument on the other hand is actually based on tests we do on the bodies of man and women. Among other things men have more testosterone then women. Ever wonder why most of the best soviet athletes in the 70's looked like men and were hairier then most women, you think its just a coincidence? They were on steroids and their testosterone levels went through the roofs.
Equality for all wrote:
"Fair" solution has a point. If its not moral for us to have sport divisions based on physical skin differences such as color (eg negro leagues baseball), then it cannot be moral for us to have divisions based on the physical difference in skin appearance.
And if you are going to argue that its not fair to cut women's programs, then you are advocating that "separate, but equal" is a fair method of social division. And we can start creating the black track Olympics, yellow track olympics, mulatto track olympics, and white people can win the marathon again.
You mean like in 2004, when the genetically inferior Stefano Baldini left behind American Africans and African Africans alike on the oldest marathon course?
Should Bekele or Haile be penalised for being genetically different? Is it fair for white men to run against black men in the 100m? Most winners in athletics are winners as a result their genetic superiority and Semenya is no different.
Halie and Bekele are men competing aganist other men. Caster is a half man/ half women competing aganist actual women, you must see a difference here, there's a difference between a man naturally being genetically superior and caster being a whole other gender entirely. Is it casters fault she's a freak? Of course not, but it's notthe fault of the actual women competing aganisther either. I rather be "unfair" to a couple of genetic freak shows then the rest of the female gender.