RE Semenya: Is LetsRun.com "continuing a dated, bigoted conversation about gender in sports."

get used to it.. wrote:

You don't disqualify people based on speculation.

Elevated T wrote:

Err, I don't know if you're aware of this, but he was stopped from competing (i.e. disqualified) because of elevated T levels; there wasn't any speculation involved.

I knew that already obviously, but that doesn't stop me from making things up.

I'm a guy, you see, not that good, and I'd like to compete with the women.

get used to it.. wrote:

And he was reinstated once they understood her condition. You are speculating, based on the evidence I provided, that the elevated T is an advantage. The IAAF feels it is not.

See, I made this up too haha.

The fact is they know he's a male but ignored his biology.

The "this will result in deaths" argument is kind of third party victim blaming, no? The argument would be that if we imply that XY or high-test women aren't really women or need to be chemically altered to be women, then they are abominations. This is a gross misunderstanding of the biological complexity of the issue that frankly is going to go over the heads of goat herders in rural Pakistan or wherever this person is worried violence will take place. But you don't fix that by people stating biological fact or making argument using said facts; you fix that by bringing education and changing the culture in those third world places.

But between harpy-esque behavior towards first world men or attempting to change the culture of third world men, guess which one third wavers in the West are going to attempt?

(hint: it's either the effective one or the easy one, and it's not the effective one)

Elevated T wrote:

The IAAF feels it is, which is why they "disqualified" her from competing and why they had upper T levels for females. The CAS were the ones that ruled in her favor and it wasn't based on whether she had an advantage because of T or not.

That's no fair using the truth against my spurious arguments.

Once a thread gets to 10 pages, it is dead.

(^^) wrote:

As far as sex-testing being humiliating and invasive, many people would probably feel that it is. The question is whether it is a reasonable requirement for someone who chooses to participate in a sport where being a man or a woman can make a serious difference in the outcome of the sport.

By comparison, both men and women who choose to compete in top-level track and field have to agree to have strangers watch them urinate, as is described in detail (including quotes by Emily Enfeld) in this recent Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/olympics/a-less-glamorous-side-of-olympic-life-peeing-in-a-cup-under-watchful-eyes/2016/07/16/8df0524c-493e-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html

This drug testing is probably felt to be humiliating and invasive by some athletes, but they choose to give up some privacy in order to compete because doping makes such a difference in the outcome of the sport.

That's another thing. Humiliating and invasive? Women routinely undergo pap smears. Are the gender tests more invasive than that? (I mean, they might be, my gender has never been tested. But the point is, most women get pap smears on an annual basis as a matter of course. The gender tests are really elective in the sense that no one is forcing you to go to the Olympics, so why would you accept one and not the other?)

Awww, another imposter. You don't think people notice the extra period after my name you loser. It is clear when people do this they are defeated. How does it taste?

get used to it... wrote:

get used to it.. wrote:

And he was reinstated once they understood her condition. You are speculating, based on the evidence I provided, that the elevated T is an advantage. The IAAF feels it is not.

See, I made this up too haha.

The fact is they know he's a male but ignored his biology.

Funny all I did was post science to prove there is no evidence to disqualify her. If me proving you haters wrong is being an idiot, well then I am an idiot.

too many retards here wrote:

get used to it.. must be one of lrc's biggest idiots. I don't even know where to start.

But this thread is so full of cluelessness and disinformation that it's not worth responding to. I recommend everyone with a higher IQ than get used to it.. to read the "Semenya jogs 800m in 1:55" thread.

Let others deal with it. wrote:

Yes, rojo, let others deal with the issue. Semenya has been checked by medical doctors, and is still allowed to compete. It is not up to letsrun to pretend it can force a change to the medically determined gender decision.

Give it a rest rojo. If you right the problem will be solved by real medical experts in the future, but that seems highly unlikely.

Rojo has a right to express an opinion and to have an on line discussion about it. ......also he is right.

While I think it is ok you responded to her criticism, by responding you just opened up pandora's box as she will twist every word you said. For instance, you said you are "proud to be a bigot" and that "bigoted views are necessary." I can assure you these two phrases will be taken out of context.

This journalist is just trying to grind an axe. It would have been better to just tell her "no comment." That way in her little article she can't smear you.

Other than that your response is very logical. But just remember she will get more hits for her article if it is about how much of a bigot you are and how you think bigotry is the best thing ever. You never said that, but she can pull quotes out of your email and let people infer you said that.

You live and you learn I suppose.

Honestly it is impossible to have any sort of informed intelligent conversation about this issue because we do not have access to the sort of detailed medical information (nor should we have) that would be needed to make any sort of rational analysis. So what we are faced with is speculation based on leaked information that may or may not be accurate. Plus a whole lot of bigoted comments as well.

Here is the latest. I got an email back from her asking for a more formal statement since her initial email was so short and I complained about it.

Reporter wrote:

My essay in *****(Major online publication****) is responding to the posted “Quote of the Day”, and your prevailing attitude towards Semenya and Chand, that I previously communicated to you about. In my essay I say that given the peer-reviewed data establishing naturally occurring testosterone as not conclusively tied to performance benefits; your reliance on "expert insight" rather than peer-reviewed science; the violence perpetuated against trans and gender nonconforming women that stems from fearmongering rhetoric including yours; and the humiliation inflicted through policing and enforcement of the biological cutoff point you advocate, that your arguments are continuing a narrative that is out of date and unproductive to the larger conversation on gender in sports. Would you like to provide a comment for the essay?.

I don't know what to do now. I may try to ask for a second column.

In terms of addressing the specifics of her email, I was thinking of mainly referring to the column we wrote last July when the CAS decision was announced. The language of the article makes it clear that everything we have arguing isn't done in a "bigoted" or "fearmongering" fashion and let it be known that I take GREAT offense to her using those terms. The only fearmongering is coming from herself as she's someone repeatedly said that me advocating that Caster Semenya shouldn't be allowed to compete in the women's category at the Olympics (she's free to compete in the men's if she likes) will result in people being murdered in Texas. That reminds me of the hyperbolic arguments used by segregationists used back in the day.

In terms of me not using peer-reviewed science, I explained why that was the case last year. There are only a small number of hyperandrogenic women so it's far from a lucrative field. As a running expert, I've never read a peer-reviewed article telling me that high mileage training works either. I don't need to a scientific paper to prove to me that a talented athlete with internal testicles like Caster Semenya is going to dominate XX athletes without hormone treatment and the developments of the last year prove that I was correct.

The fact that in that article last year I basically predicted exactly that the hypperandrogenism runners would dominate shows that shows that "my expert" analysis is far ahead of the peer-reviewed science.

In terms of scientific proof, I think the slowing of Semenya once she got treatment and her rapid improvement (as well of that of Niyonsaba and Wambui ) over the last year is all the proof you need.

Look at the improvement of Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui since the CAS decision. Below you'll see their seasonal best before the decision last year and their seasonal best this year.

Semenya - 2:04.19 / 1:55.13sb

Niyonsaba - 2:05.45/1:56.24

Wambui - 2:01.32/1:57.52

If they want further proof, they should look at the athletes who had their internal testicles surgically removed and see how fast they ran after surgery as compared to pre-surgery.

And speaking of proof, is the author going to change her conclusion once the peer reviewed articles do come out?

Here is the article from last year.

Here were our Quick Takes (I've reordered them).

The article explains why we don't rely on peer-reviewed science

Quick Thought #1: This Is A Very Difficult and Sensitive Issue But The Court’s Logic Is Flawed – It Would Have Been Much Better To Keep The Regulations in Place and Give The IAAF Two Years to Come Up With Scientific Evidence

We understand why the court is hesitant to bar hyperandrogenic athletes from competition without proven “scientific evidence about the quantitative relationship between enhanced testosterone levels and improved athletic performance in hyperandrogenic athletes” but it seems to us a far better plan would be to keep the regulations intact and give the IAAF two years to come up with the evidence.

Years of steroid abuse and common sense show that testosterone has a huge impact on performance. Just because there aren’t scores of scientific papers on hyperandrogenic athletes doesn’t mean the well-thought-out regulations should be discarded. The IAAF’s rules certainly pass the common sense test of being fair whereas the CAS decision does not (see point #2). The normal female range of serum testosterone is approximately 0.1 – 2.8 nmol/L. The normal male range is above 10.5 nmol/L. The IAAF had barred any hyperandrogenic women from competing unless their levels were reduced to below 10 nmol/L.

Quick Thought #2: It Might Be Difficult For The IAAF To Scientifically Prove The Testosterone is The Key Ingredient for The Hyperandorgenic Women’s Success As There Aren’t That Many Hyperandorgenic Athletes to Study

It seems to us the most convincing proof is how drastic the decline in performance of hyperandorgenic athletes who have been treated, with Caster Semenya being the most public example (but we understand the IAAF has quietly treated others), has been.

Quick Thought #3: In Trying To Protect A Very Small Number of People, CAS May Be Hurting Many More

If all hyperandrogenic women with a testosterone level above 10 nmol/L were barred from competing until the science behind the rule is totally proven, it would only impact a handful of women like Chand. If, in the interim, hyperanadrogenic women are allowed to compete and they dominate like Caster Semenya did before her treatment, then scores of women (all the people losing the races) will be impacted.

To harm many to help a few is illogical.

Quick Thought #4: Is Caster Semenya The Favorite For the 2016 Olympic Gold Medal in The Women’s 800?

Before she was treated for her hyperandrogenic condition, Caster Semenya was a 1:55 performer in the women’s 800. Nowadays, she can’t break 2:02. While it’s not publicly known if she has been treated surgically or hormonally, if she was just treated hormonally (a hormonal treatment is temporary, a surgical removal of internal testes would be permanent), it won’t take her (or any of the other women that many believe were hyperandrogenic in the women’s 800) long to regain much of her old form.

Katrina Karkazis ‏@Karkazis

Me too. Most of the neg press comes from boards and their interviews and is amplified by Tucker and Press

@Karkazis @JulesBoykoff Been really disturbed & angry by way track media (e.g. Let's Run) in post-race interviews bait athletes on Semenya.

@Karkazis @JulesBoykoff Post qualifiers, every top runner in Semenya's events were asked about her & PUSHED if they gave a non-phobic reply.

@FromaLeftWing @JulesBoykoff Exactly. I read all tweets mentioning Semenya since Friday. Vast majority of neg ones after Tucker posts.

----

You should read her Twitter timeline. This Katrina bitch is literally sending her mediocre article to 100s of people.

Auto Pilot wrote:

Pilot Joe fan wrote:

clearly she produces quite a bit more T then the other ladies in the race

Please provide a link for your claim. Thanks in advance.

Yeah I will provide link a link right after you explain the Semenya results while she was on hormone therapy...where she was just average and just one of the gals and not off the therapy she is a world beater again.

rojo wrote:

Here is the latest. I got an email back from him asking for a more formal statement since his initial email was so short and I complained about it.

I don't know what to do now.

Would you comment on a dopers magazine where they were trying to justify that their doping was acceptable and that you were the bad guy?

No, you would not, and this issue is much worse than doping.

My suggestion is to do what you usually do to dopers.

Expose them.

Keep standing up for real women, and for keeping men out of women's events.

religionofpiece wrote:

You should read his Twitter timeline. This Katrina bitch is literally sending his mediocre article to 100s of people.

So, let him keep hanging himself, and carry on as usual.

We have the truth on our side.

The claim about peer-reviewed science is being used in a highly selective way here I believe, wouldn't the most relevant and useful science here be.

1. Studies showing whether or not testosterone confers a performance benefit.

2. Studies showing the usual range of testosterone in XX athletes.

3. The testosterone levels in the athletes in question.

Make up your mind wrote:

ergerg wrote:

Wrong! Semenya is a MAN. If you accept he's a female then you're not telling the truth! and you're justifying him being in women's events.

Wrong! Semenya is not a man and does not want anybody to use "he" when referring to Semenya. Semenya is not a woman but does want everybody to use "she" when referring to Semenya.

Language does not make a man nor a woman. It has no effect on the sex organs.

The ignorance on this issue is completely mind numbing.

Mouse Speed wrote:

Rojo,

As a female runner, feminist, and transgender advocate, I completely agree that Semenya and other intersex athletes should NOT be allowed to compete against xx females unless their testosterone is reduced to the appropriate level. I don't see any discrimation or bigoted issue with a rational rule supported by science that allows for a protected women's category.

Correct.

Mouse Speed wrote:

The only issue I see is that this board allows for bigoted, transphobic, hateful, disgusting Semenya bashing, in the name of free speech. That is the first thing that should be regulated ...before even talking about regulating anyone's testosterone levels.

Incorrect.