Do not read David S summary, it is biased and manipulative. Read the document people.
Do not read David S summary, it is biased and manipulative. Read the document people.
Amby Burfoot wrote:
I mentioned the oral contraceptive issue, but don't think I clarified it well enough. Basically, it came up late in the proceedings, and caused CAS some consternation. The question is: Will simple oral contraceptives, used by millions worldwide and generally regarded as low-risk (despite some side effects) actually achieve what IAAF wants--T lowering below 5.0 nmol/L? How is anyone supposed to know the answer to this? There's little data on T changes in XY DSD women who take the pills. In Semenya's case, she reportedly varied from under 1.0 to 7.4 while taking the pills exactly as prescribed (she said). Back in the 2009-2015 period, she was supposed to get below 10.0--not the new standard of 5.0.
The problem here is the notion of "reasonable and proportionate" methods to achieve IAAF's goal. It's absolutely central to the whole argument. That's why it comes up so often. If contraceptives work, great. If they don't, the use of stronger drugs or surgery might not be deemed reasonable and proportionate.
We already know that the World Medical Association is on Semenya's side with regard to taking oral contraceptives. I don't think this question is going to disappear quickly.
Yeah I didn't really understand this part.
-Just because you make something available to some people doesn't mean it's going to be an option for everyone. I know a lot of women who struggled with oral contraceptives, they had really bad side effects and had to try several different brands before finding one that worked for them if they ever did. I know a couple who ended up having to go a different route (iud or whatever instead of pill). Probably any option they come up with is going to be a problem for some people.
-Also, Caster says she's not going to be taking any medications no matter what, and I'm not sure we can blame her for that after what she's gone through.
So yeah it's hard to understand to what extent these "reasonable options" make sense in the judgement.
David Srs wrote:
Do not read David S summary, it is biased and manipulative. Read the document people.
Sorry I didn't mean it to be a summary at all, I just listed a few points I found interesting. I would have edited my comment if I had the option to but it took me a while to write and I had to get going.
I didn't read the paper. This whole thing is beyond nuts. You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. Lowering CS's test levels doesn't make up for the advantages of growing up with elevated T levels due to having a Y chromosome. Your body and muscle memory just cannot unlearn those natural advantages you are born with. We've lost the script in the West because we are too afraid to speak honestly about reality.
David S wrote:
Yeah I didn't really understand this part.
-Just because you make something available to some people doesn't mean it's going to be an option for everyone. I know a lot of women who struggled with oral contraceptives, they had really bad side effects and had to try several different brands before finding one that worked for them if they ever did. I know a couple who ended up having to go a different route (iud or whatever instead of pill). Probably any option they come up with is going to be a problem for some people.
-Also, Caster says she's not going to be taking any medications no matter what, and I'm not sure we can blame her for that after what she's gone through.
So yeah it's hard to understand to what extent these "reasonable options" make sense in the judgement.
___________________________
Not to nitpick words, but I argue it's MORE than "reasonable" to allow somebody with male genetic and physiological advantages to compete in the women's category at all. IAAF is being more generous than it should be considering the scientific evidence on sex difference in sports.
In terms of what Caster has gone though, I have empathy because she has been the subject of lots of racist and sexist hatred, but hatred grounded in "isms" and ignorance is not relevant to the question at hand which is: who should be able to compete as a woman? If Semenya has the very same bodily properties that give males an advantage over females, she should be excluded from the women's category altogether--pending any future studies showing that medical interventions completely eliminate that advantage. The same applies to transwomen athletes. Why should we ask XX women to lose out on the prestige, money, accolades, psychological, and other benefits that come from sports participation (or even the benefits of watching other girls and women succeed in sports) while we wait for more evidence to show us whether or not lowering T levels levels the playing field? The small bit of evidence we have suggests that people who undergo male puberty have an advantage that can't be undone. Let's hoodwink the gender equality movement by telling females (and male allies) that they're bigoted, transphobic, and racist for wanting sex, and not gender identity, to be the basis for inclusion/exclusion!
I'm so sick of people manipulating the scientific evidence to suit their political agendas--and this is coming from somebody who is broadly supportive of extending non-discrimination protections to encompass gender and sexual identity in most realms of social life. We can't pretend the sex binary doesn't exist because some people have genetic and physiological anomalies. This is strikingly similar to the way the tobacco industry manufactured scientific controversy about smoking, and the way oil companies manufacture controversy about climate change--except in this instance, progressive idealogues are pushing post-truth narratives from inside the university. Anybody who disagrees with queer theory narratives (namely, the idea that sex difference is an effect of power and not a biological reality) is bullied into silence or submission. And, as LRC pointed out, none of the major news publications mentioned the fact that Caster has XY chromosomes, testes, high T, and androgen sensitivity. None have pointed out that T levels don't meaningfully overlap between males and females, even when females have polycystic ovarian syndrome. The word "female" is substituted for "woman," confusing our ability to distinguish between social conventions and the much less mutable reality of the sexed body.
I've been a political progressive and feminist my entire adult life, but I'm frightened and angry about authoritarians (disguised as progressives) quashing reasoned debate. The very same university people who grandstand about how we need to prioritize "lived experience" seem all-too-willing to ignore Paula Radcliffe and Lindsey Sharp while giving expert status to narcissist and identity politics profiteer, Rachel McKinnon. It's a logical and conceptual cluster****
Unfortunately, things will probably get worse before they get better.
Dijon Sanders wrote:
make what go away? wrote:
Do you mean women's sports?
After skimming through the thread about Allie O complaining about the Sports Announcers commenting on her appearance, I'm inclined to start rooting for Semenya just to see all women's sports go away so these insufferable women can go back to activities for which they are more naturally suited.
Can you imagine when all the DSD athletes take over "women's" sports, how low the rating will be? Oh it will be glorious to watch the demise. Maybe the disincentive for women to participate in sports will be so great that the absurdity of title IX will grow more stark and it can finally be destroyed.
No, not women’s sports. Exactly the opposite. Caster needs to go away. It’s not her fault the way she was born, but she’s ruing women’s track.
Go away Caster.....
I knew what you meant, but it's not going to happen. Castor isn't going anywhere. The government court that overturned the CAS ruling will make sure of that. Furthermore, Castor is just the first step. She is the grey-zone situation that is spearheading the push to let M to F Trans people soon compete against natural women. If our culture is unable to say no to a person with Y chromosomes who happened to have a dysfunction in their normal biological development, how will we say no to a person with Y chromosomes who happens to have a dysfunction in their psychological development? Both categories are seen as marginalized victim groups, and since we can't say no to anyone who claims marginalized victim status, there will be no grounds upon which to say no to Transgender athletes. Women's sports is as good as over. It was fun while it lasted.
NPC #262222 wrote:
I didn't read the paper. This whole thing is beyond nuts. You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. Lowering CS's test levels doesn't make up for the advantages of growing up with elevated T levels due to having a Y chromosome. Your body and muscle memory just cannot unlearn those natural advantages you are born with. We've lost the script in the West because we are too afraid to speak honestly about reality.
I agree with the sentiment that it's absurd, and essentially dishonest, to say to someone "you're not woman enough to compete as a woman, but if you take these drugs you can qualify as a female". Why not say to me "well Carl, you didn't make the International Standard again this year, but if you take these drugs, you might be able to, so have at it"?
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman." Life doesn't work that way.
The same people (largely who argue against her competing as a woman would also demand she use the woman's change rooms and showers.
Further, limiting this rule to the few events they have simply spells discrimination.
It's ironic that one of the arguments made most frequently against Semenya's case is her inability to have children, and that in order to compete as a female she should take contraceptives.
However, This statement "You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. " may be one of the greatest unintended puns on LRC ever.
wtfunny wrote:
NPC #262222 wrote:
I didn't read the paper. This whole thing is beyond nuts. You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. Lowering CS's test levels doesn't make up for the advantages of growing up with elevated T levels due to having a Y chromosome. Your body and muscle memory just cannot unlearn those natural advantages you are born with. We've lost the script in the West because we are too afraid to speak honestly about reality.
I agree with the sentiment that it's absurd, and essentially dishonest, to say to someone "you're not woman enough to compete as a woman, but if you take these drugs you can qualify as a female". Why not say to me "well Carl, you didn't make the International Standard again this year, but if you take these drugs, you might be able to, so have at it"?
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman." Life doesn't work that way.
The same people (largely who argue against her competing as a woman would also demand she use the woman's change rooms and showers.
Further, limiting this rule to the few events they have simply spells discrimination.
It's ironic that one of the arguments made most frequently against Semenya's case is her inability to have children, and that in order to compete as a female she should take contraceptives.
However, This statement "You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. " may be one of the greatest unintended puns on LRC ever.
Long story short, we no longer have the ability to define what a woman is. And due to this fact, we are unable to have women's only sport categories. Good riddance!
It was all a giant failure anyway. Will we really miss hearing these women complain about not getting paid the same as men for performing at a level that top high school boys can surpass? Let's just enjoy watching the whole charade collapse. And then go off-line and head out the door for a run.
[/quote]
Long story short, we no longer have the ability to define what a woman is. And due to this fact, we are unable to have women's only sport categories. Good riddance!
It was all a giant failure anyway. Will we really miss hearing these women complain about not getting paid the same as men for performing at a level that top high school boys can surpass? Let's just enjoy watching the whole charade collapse. And then go off-line and head out the door for a run.[/quote]
___________________________________________
Who hurt you?
[quote]wtfunny wrote:
[quote]NPC #262222 wrote:
However, This statement "You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. " may be one of the greatest unintended puns on LRC ever.[quote}
I noticed that too. Also find it interesting the Caster complained that the medication Caster was required to take made Caster not feel well and gain weight...
My first thought after that comment was Welcome to Womanhood, Many athletes deal with those feelings every month.
make what go away wrote:
wtfunny wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that it's absurd, and essentially dishonest, to say to someone "you're not woman enough to compete as a woman, but if you take these drugs you can qualify as a female". Why not say to me "well Carl, you didn't make the International Standard again this year, but if you take these drugs, you might be able to, so have at it"?
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman." Life doesn't work that way.
The same people (largely who argue against her competing as a woman would also demand she use the woman's change rooms and showers.
Further, limiting this rule to the few events they have simply spells discrimination.
It's ironic that one of the arguments made most frequently against Semenya's case is her inability to have children, and that in order to compete as a female she should take contraceptives.
However, This statement "You need two Xs to compete as a woman. Period. " may be one of the greatest unintended puns on LRC ever.
Long story short, we no longer have the ability to define what a woman is. And due to this fact, we are unable to have women's only sport categories. Good riddance!
It was all a giant failure anyway. Will we really miss hearing these women complain about not getting paid the same as men for performing at a level that top high school boys can surpass? Let's just enjoy watching the whole charade collapse. And then go off-line and head out the door for a run.
Ain't postmodernism great? It's the ouroboros. When society is fractured out into a multiplicity of protected groups the groups' multiplicity is such that it's self-nullifying; when everyone is a member of a special group, no one is special. The irony would be hilarious if the effects weren't so collectively stupefying.
I do wonder if any of the top women have had their contracts restructured to account for the intersexed athletes, with performance bonus language modified to account for the (mostly) automatically reduced positions.
wtfunny wrote:
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman." Life doesn't work that way.
Life absolutely works this way. How can you tell the difference between two things? Don't you reduce them until you arrive at characteristics that are found in one and not the other? Without a standard of classification (and language for that matter) it is impossible to determine one thing from another. Orwell would roll over in his grave.
wtfunny wrote:
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman." Life doesn't work that way.
What would be your problem with this?
wtfunny wrote:
I also think it's somewhat arbitrary and awfully reductive to assert "You need two X's to compete as a woman."
How about "if you have testicles you can't compete as a woman"?
It's absurd that this is even a controversy, and shows how intellectually inadequate our elites' worldview is. Not one MSM article on the subject has even approached sanity. But it's not worth fighting the issue directly. Let women's sports burn under the fires of sex denial. We need more fundamental change, namely the complete replacement of our insane political/cultural establishment.
GD wrote:
Long story short, we no longer have the ability to define what a woman is. And due to this fact, we are unable to have women's only sport categories. Good riddance!
It was all a giant failure anyway. Will we really miss hearing these women complain about not getting paid the same as men for performing at a level that top high school boys can surpass? Let's just enjoy watching the whole charade collapse. And then go off-line and head out the door for a run.[/quote]
___________________________________________
Who hurt you?[/quote]
I've been following this Castor story from the beginning. For years, I've been posting here on letsrun about how the thorny issue of intersex athletes should be discerned to protect women's sports. After years of watching and talking about this Castor nonsense, I no longer care about protecting women's sports. It's incredibly liberating to admit that all things considered, professional women's sports doesn't bring any net value to the world or to the lives of female athletes. So what's the point of working so hard to protect it?
I'm the opposite of hurt. I'm actually quite amused by this entire Castor situation. If professional women's sports is eventually destroyed by the demands for inclusion by intersex-athletes and then by trans-athletes, I will consider it a net benefit for our society. Why should so many women dedicate so many prime years of their life pursuing a skill that a no name college male athlete can surpass? If this inclusion trend continues to destroy female professional sports, no one will be having more fun than me as I laugh and cheer it on.
NPC #262222 wrote:
...
Ain't postmodernism great? It's the ouroboros. When society is fractured out into a multiplicity of protected groups the groups' multiplicity is such that it's self-nullifying; when everyone is a member of a special group, no one is special. The irony would be hilarious if the effects weren't so collectively stupefying.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind about a multiplication (or alleged multiplication) of protected groups, but I suggest that rant, or issue, has no relevance whatsoever to the issue here, which is entirely about one very specific protected group. Everybody knows exactly what the protected group under discussion is -- it's "women".
The only problem, and it is the crux of the matter, is defining who is in this one protected group.
Thank you to David S, Dijon Gebremustard, and Amby Burfoot, for writing thoughtfully about this issue.
rourobos wrote:
NPC #262222 wrote:
...
Ain't postmodernism great? It's the ouroboros. When society is fractured out into a multiplicity of protected groups the groups' multiplicity is such that it's self-nullifying; when everyone is a member of a special group, no one is special. The irony would be hilarious if the effects weren't so collectively stupefying.
It sounds like you have an axe to grind about a multiplication (or alleged multiplication) of protected groups, but I suggest that rant, or issue, has no relevance whatsoever to the issue here, which is entirely about one very specific protected group. Everybody knows exactly what the protected group under discussion is -- it's "women".
The only problem, and it is the crux of the matter, is defining who is in this one protected group.
I have no axe to grind; this is just a microcosm of larger problem. This is not about "women." It's about the slippery slope of standards where language becomes disconnected from reality. We're letting the tail wag the dog.
After this ruling I am curious about a lot of things such as what happens when Semenya is going at it with someone else. Does the ejaculation squirt like a guy or cream, ferment and drip like a gal? Or maybe the thing pulsates like a snap dragon while pushing an unknown grey substance out faster than an erratic geyser.