SEMENYA jogs 800m in 1:55

Doesn't matter what he/she runs. It will always have a phallic shaped asterisk after it. He/she does not belong in races with women. Hell we may as well have Bruce Jenner start training again for some women's master's records.

Reg wrote:

Whomever gets second in the 800 should cross the line with arms high, feeling like a winner.

You mean whoever gets 4th. Two other men, Niyonsaba and Wambui, will take the other medals.

Tucker's research = sociology wrote:

According to Ross Tucker's summary of this thread you two hold EXTREME points of view:

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/caster-semenya-debate/

Tucker is an insufferable narcissist, exemplified by his own Letsrun self postings that he reposted on his website, apparently to highlight his own unbiased two-way red herring discussion, with himself.

He offers nothing helpful to this discussion, least of all his extreme obsession with putting intersexed men in women's events.

Prof Ross Tucker now says that there is "no such thing in human physiology" as hermaphroditism. Would be news to biological textbooks: simple meaning is "having reproductive organs typically associated with both sexes", and certainly occurs in humans too. As a presumed wordsmith he continues to insist upon words like "intersex", and deride anyone who doesn't use his "enlightened" terms. But both having testes and a vagina (exempli gratia), is pretty much inarguably hermaphroditic. (Neither term serves to necessarily imply the supposed performance advantage of males, so each are equally faulty there.)

In his post page 3, Prof Ross Tucker says re: semenya, " It means that she identifies as a woman, is female" (emph added) but I guess it all depends on the meaning of "is" since by page 8 he is scolding others and saying Semenya "cannot be described, biologically, as either male or female". So by now "female" is a social construct, in Prof Ross Tucker's vocabulary. Except when he decides it isn't (like when others use alternative renditions).

Going further, Prof Ross Tucker now tweets persons "can be identified as female without being allowed to compete in women's events." First, there is missing how such persons can be "identified", when they "cannot be described, biologically" in this way, other than a Humpty-Dumpty language (ab)usage. And finally, Prof Ross Tucker is exactly wrong in his tweetage, since the CAS decision said that once someone is "identified as female" (legally), then that person has to be allowed in women's events (their strident words are "must be permitted" according to YO-JO), unless some effectively impossible burden of proof regarding "substantial performance advantage" (another ill-defined mess) is met.

So IMO Prof Ross Tucker is slippery in his discussion on both biology and law, but does output a lot of social opinions, courtesy of social media.

Old.Smokie is correct. The term "intersex" contains a number of possible subconditions, one of which is "hermaphroditism". So the latter is more precise (why would one essentially demand a less-exacting term be used?!).

But I would not say these two are equally faulty concerning performance advantage implications, just that each is faulty.

Prof Ross Tucker now proclaims (Twitter, 15 July) that we "know (from 2009 controversy") that Semenya is "XY female". But what does that mean? Prof Ross Tucker has previously posted that in Semenya's case "biologically" neither male nor female is correct. But he openly says "female", ostensibly as a social construct (on social Twitter media). So how is it "known", other than as a virtue-signalling device among the cognoscenti, as to the "right" way to refer to Semenya? In the context of athletics, as Prof Ross Tucker ostensibly purports to be, how Semenya is socially placed is not (or should not) be relevant. Rather, Prof Ross Tucker should tweet "XY (that is male, genetically), biologically neither male nor female", to be consistent with his own scientific diagnosis.

Biorrhea wrote: (why would one essentially demand a less-exacting term be used?!)

To ask this question, is to answer it. One of the major techniques of social deconstruction, is language (and coercing others per the same). Here they insist on not using a perfectly fine term ("hermaphroditism"), for specious reasons having nothing to do with merit, only social positioning. Replacing the direct with the vague and indirect ("intersex", as multiform in possible meaning and intent), is a facet of this operation.

That's an excellent post, Old.Smokie. The definition of "is" according to Tucker depends on how the person in question feels.

Tucker says that man/male/he and woman/female/she should be considered social constructs that we have no business to question. How you "self-identify" (whatever that means) should be considered the truth regardless of reality.

I challenge everybody to find analogous constructs in the English language. Which words have we commonly agreed upon that should have no relation to physical reality?

The only ones I can think of are feelings. For example, someone can say that they feel sad or they feel happy, and there is no simple way other people can dispute that. We will usually accept their statements about how they feel. Normally it's not our business or not relevant for us to question how they feel. Unless, of course, they're trying to trick us and obtain advantages by lying about their feelings.

So basically Tucker says that whether you're a man or a woman depends only on how you feel. He doesn't even allow for others to call you out if you're lying about your feelings. It's become a sacrilege to even question whether someone is a man or a woman. We should just respect it and shut up.

CAS says that if society considers a person a female she should be allowed to compete in female athletics (because of "human rights" blah blah). This means that we are effectively locked out from discussing the subject without being considered bigots or "extreme" as Tucker labels us. We're neither allowed to question someone's feelings or their human rights. This is of course not anything new. I don't know how many times we've seen leftists trying to limit a discussion by drawing up lines for what is permitted to say and smearing everyone who does not follow their rules. In fact, you can always spot a leftist's weak points by looking at what he says you're not allowed to discuss.

But sorry, Tucker. We're not going to shut up. We're going to call out those who we think are cheaters as long as rojo lets us. So you can just commit treason to your scientific beliefs and keep on juggling your numerous definitions of man and woman in order to please everybody. I'm going to stick to the notion that a person with male chromosome characteristics *IS* a man. If this person wants to "self-identify" as something else, that's fine as long as he doesn't claim to BE something else and obtain advantages he otherwise wouldn't have.

And just call me "extreme". If Caster Semenya winning 800m gold is the new normality, I'll be proud to be considered extreme.

Old.Smokie wrote:

Prof Ross Tucker now proclaims (Twitter, 15 July) that we "know (from 2009 controversy") that Semenya is "XY female". But what does that mean? Prof Ross Tucker has previously posted that in Semenya's case "biologically" neither male nor female is correct. But he openly says "female", ostensibly as a social construct (on social Twitter media). So how is it "known", other than as a virtue-signalling device among the cognoscenti, as to the "right" way to refer to Semenya? In the context of athletics, as Prof Ross Tucker ostensibly purports to be, how Semenya is socially placed is not (or should not) be relevant. Rather, Prof Ross Tucker should tweet "XY (that is male, genetically), biologically neither male nor female", to be consistent with his own scientific diagnosis.

Unfortunately, today's legal world likes to use "leverage", and once you are "female" by one nomenclature, that can be amplified to other realms. I fully expect a college professor to know and understand this. Of course you can speak casually in some contexts, but with 2009 already happening as a trial run on the issue, the overarching milieu of debate should be clear. So if Tucker wants to have an impact on the 1/10 of people he thinks he can reach, he should be more self-consistent in word choice.

Furthermore, I too find it on the odd side that words like "female", "woman", and "she/her" are to be (merely) social constructs in common parlance, when for about 99.95% of the population there is no dispute on the biological end. As others keep on stressing, isn't it a depression of their "rights", to allow whomever to self-identify however, and symmetrically demand the same from others? OTOH, for at least some intersex conditions, I will agree that some leeway should be given regarding social disposition.

I don't know how many times we've seen leftists trying to limit a discussion by drawing up lines for what is permitted to say and smearing everyone who does not follow their rules. In fact, you can always spot a leftist's weak points by looking at what he says you're not allowed to discuss.

The phrase I usually look for in their arguments is "of course", always a sign that it's debatable to non-leftists.

I don't disagree with you! I've made clear elsewhere in this thread and in other threads on the subject that I think there's a real problem here. I'm simply trying to get people here to remember that we're talking about a person here, not a freak. But I agree with you 100%: Caster has an unfair advantage, not a fair advantage, and her female competitors are suffering for it in a way that should upset any fair-minded person.

If you watch the documentary, it's hard not to feel for Caster, and for her mother. I'm inclined to say "These are simple, loving people doing the best they can to play the hand they were dealt." Sounds sappy, but that's what I see.

By the same token, there's a problem here. You and I agree. I made the argument I've made--the plea to remember our common humanity and our shared passion for running--primarily as a way of reminding those who are tempted to hate on Caster that we're talking about a person here. Believe it or not, not everybody remembers that.

disrespectful and proud wrote:I don't know how many times we've seen leftists trying to limit a discussion by drawing up lines for what is permitted to say and smearing everyone who does not follow their rules. In fact, you can always spot a leftist's weak points by looking at what he says you're not allowed to discuss.

Merv wrote:

The phrase I usually look for in their arguments is "of course", always a sign that it's debatable to non-leftists.

Let's not limit our vision to bush league politics.

This is an important issue for all people in the world, and especially for women in athletics.

CAS says that if society considers a person a female she should be allowed to compete in female athletics (because of "human rights" blah blah).

I wish to clarify something. By my reading, it is not per se a "human right" that the CAS says is operative, but the Olympian principles (thus binding on the IAAF by subsidiarity, I presume) that inter alia assert a "human right"; and moreover this right is not "to compete in female athletics", but to the "practice of sport". If some other body (like the ECHR, as the IOC has a European seat) instituted a "human right" as mandatory law, then it would apply more broadly (not just to sport), but in the instant case, it is only the IOC that asserts this "human right" to the practice of sport AFAICT.

The later section 519 is where the CAS decides that someone "legally recognised as female" typically "must be permitted" to compete in the female category, but again I think they base this conclusion on the IAAF regulations, and not "human rights" per se. So blame the IAAF for poorly drafted regs, not the "human rights" tambourinists!

N. B. The CAS paragraph 513 actually truncated the Fourth Fundamental Principle of Olympism (which is part of their Charter, so seems legit to quote as a legal basis). The full text is: The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind ** and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play, with the CAS cutting the quotation at the ** mark.

ALL THAT j wrote: So if Tucker wants to have an impact on the 1/10 of people he thinks he can reach, he should be more self-consistent in word choice.

Perhaps Prof. Ross Tucker thinks LB forums are just a bunch of unwashed knuckle-dragging masses of ignoranti, while his twitter media contacts are "important people" are the ones to impress.

And this is where you justification falls flat. Do not "cover" your decision to allow hateful speech towards Caster to appear on your site under the guise of free speech. Racist speech is also free speech and yet you do chose to moderate that type of speech. You are better served to simply acknowledge that moderation is at the discretion of the stie owners and some hateful speech will be allowed and some won't.

rojo wrote:

Mouse Speed wrote:

Rojo-- can you please read this thoughtful post and more heavily moderate the hateful and disgusting posts about Semenya.

I'm not going to delete something simply because it's ignorant. I don't think people should call Semenya an It or He but the whole point of free speech is to allow speech you don't agree with. Yes, we always delete racist terms but moderating is a no win situation.

And this is where you justification falls flat. Do not "cover" your decision to allow hateful speech towards Caster to appear on your site under the guise of free speech. Racist speech is also free speech and yet you do chose to moderate that type of speech. You are better served to simply acknowledge that moderation is at the discretion of the stie owners and some hateful speech will be allowed and some won't.

Read more:

Old.Smokie wrote:

Prof Ross Tucker now proclaims (Twitter, 15 July) that we "know (from 2009 controversy") that Semenya is "XY female". But what does that mean?

It means Semenya is an XY male, that he's choosing to call a female.

However an XY male is most definitely not a female, and therefore is not qualified to run in women's athletic events.

The following is from Tucker's website:

CAS overturned that rule [an almost non existent limit on testosterone levels] last year ... The result is that all intersex [men] no longer have a limit on testosterone. Semenya is certainly not the only one – rumours of other runners exist, though none were so shamefully “outed” as Semenya in 2009.

Tucker says the truth about intersex males is shameful, and therefore the XY condition should not be used to determine who can compete in women's athletics events. Furthermore he says the only criteria should be what a man wishes to say that he is, and if he says he is female, that he be allowed to compete. Tucker only states his opinions, but misconstrues them as science.

I feel that is wrong, and that the only proper solution is to allow 100 percent XX women only to compete in women's events, women who have met all the biological criteria for being a woman, and that no man, intersex or otherwise, shall ever be allowed to compete in any women's events, regardless the venue.

.

YO-JO wrote:

So blame the IAAF for poorly drafted regs, not the "human rights" tambourinists!

N. B. The CAS paragraph 513 actually truncated the Fourth Fundamental Principle of Olympism (which is part of their Charter, so seems legit to quote as a legal basis). The full text is: The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practising sport, without discrimination of any kind ** and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play, with the CAS cutting the quotation at the ** mark.

Brilliant YO-JO, I'm glad you're on this case. Of course they excised (without ellipsis!) the final lines concerning "spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play", because it's clear that there is precisely not "fair play" under their decision. Back in §39 they quoted it correctly.

Great point too (previously) on the jurisdiction issue (§§419-436). The IAAF never had to let the CAS hear the case, but "wished" (§424) to have the HA regulations reviewed by them! Pointing again to a mole (or two, or three) in the hierarchy.

I found in §70 (Rule 141 of IAAF) they specifically say "An athlete shall be eligible to compete in men's competition if he is recognized as a male in law..." and similarly for women's/female/she in the same (parts 4 and 5). So it is the IAAF that is relying on "law", rather than biology. The CAS had to follow to them! The conspiracy theorists concerning "IAAF execs" are probably multiplying by now.