SEMENYA jogs 800m in 1:55

ALL THAT j wrote: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.

For someone so pedantic about word choice, you might note that Tucker is a university professor, not college.

YO-JO wrote:

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!

Thank you for clarifying. The way I understand it is that the IAAF and IOC have voluntarily chosen to accept CAS as the arbiter of their activities. I don't think they had any choice though. There is no way IAAF and IOC can work in Europe unless their gender policy is as strict as the national policies or at least as strict as "European human rights" require. Countries like Sweden would immediately put IAAF and IOC in big trouble if they deviated from their national gender policies.

So this is not a scientific question. It's a political question. Tucker has already accepted the SJW's first argument, that choosing your own gender is a human right regardless of your anatomy. But when you accept that you've already lost the case. There's no way society can operate with four different definitions of what is a man/woman. Down the road you will eventually end up with roughly the same definition of man/woman in sports as in the rest of society.

CAS understands this, and they don't give a hoot about Xs and Ys and all that difficult chromosome stuff. They only care about how they can best accommodate the current political fad. They're now trying out with these obvious intersex guys running and it looks like it will be a disaster. So they turn to willing scientists who can give them an argument to deviate from the societal norms, but just enough deviation to get away from the pressure from the gender warriors. Tucker is such a willing scientist who doesn't care enough about his scientific beliefs to stand up for them. Instead of saying that gender is best determined by genetics, he advocates that intersex guys take drugs to become less manly and thus be able to compete in the female category without too much protests from either side.

Tucker calls it being realistic. I'd say it's a madhouse.

.(.).9.0. wrote:

For someone so pedantic about word choice, you might note that Tucker is a university professor, not college.

A university is an institution of higher learning, and therefore is a college.

So he's a college professor, another red herring.

disrespectful and proud wrote:

Instead of saying that gender is best determined by genetics, he advocates that intersex guys take drugs to become less manly and thus be able to compete in the female category without too much protests from either side.

Tucker calls it being realistic. I'd say it's a madhouse.

Yes, and that's exactly the issue.

"For someone so pedantic about word choice, you might note that Tucker is a university professor, not college."

Sheesh, are we next going to debate whether Tucker is involved in "andragogy" versus "pedagogy" vis-a-vis his students? The latter word, though etymologically meaning "leader of youths", is construed (in context) by most everyone to mean "teaching" in a general sense. Similarly, "college" is construed as a place of higher learning (and can include universities), while many "universities" would fail the etymological test, not being "universal" in what they teach (e.g., effective trade schools that pronounce themselves as "universities", but who am I do contradict their self-identification?). Now I see why no one ever gets to the big issues, the small ones are too diverting.

"College" means different things in different countries. Maybe the protester is not an American.

I found in §70 (Rule 141 of IAAF) they specifically say "An athlete shall be eligible to compete in women's competition if she is recognized as a female in law and is eligible to compete under the Rules and Regulations".

So.... after the HA regs got struck down, one only needs to be "recognized as a female in law" to compete in IAAF women's competition? Why didn't they fix this loophole ASAP?

a) Any athlete shall be eligible to compete in the open competition.

b) Persons who satisfy conditions A (female in law), B (female in biology), C (female in genetics), ... and Z (female in self-identification) can compete in the women's competition.

Problem solved! Too easy?

Science-tist wrote:

idiotusIrrationalis wrote:

Idiot, use a good dictionary. Look up "gender". Look up "sex". Look up "intersex". She identifies as a female, so she her gender is female. Biologically, her sex is neither male nor female. It is intersex.

Idiot, she has some physical, anatomic and hormonal issues that are atypical that can be classified according to chromosomal and testosterone levels.

How Semenya or any of us 'identifies' is no more material than whether I claim to be myself, Napoleon or Allah.

No 5h1t. You did not comprehend what I wrote.

what gets me about tucker is that he deliberately only looks at the duly proclaimed "extreme" posts here at LR, when those are likely just false-flag pot-stirrers from sjw advocates in an effort to discredit their opponents

that way tucker gets always to present himself as an enlightened voice in the middle, when it is just self-prophesying that he is attacked on all sides

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false.

1. Semenya has internal testes.

2. Whether it's XY or XXY, Semenya has a Y chromosome.

3. Even when on hormone treatment, Semenya had a testosterone level 3 x a normal woman, and it is now many times higher.

4. Semenya has no female reproductive organs (uterus and ovaries).

5. Semenya is legally married to a woman.

6. Semenya identifies personally as a woman and always has.

If all are true, is 6 what has swayed the CAS, effectively disregarding 1-4 (5 doesn't matter)?

She was almost about to catch that camera on rails but ran out of distance.

Karma Police wrote:

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false.

1. Semenya has internal testes.

2. Whether it's XY or XXY, Semenya has a Y chromosome.

3. Even when on hormone treatment, Semenya had a testosterone level 3 x a normal woman, and it is now many times higher.

4. Semenya has no female reproductive organs (uterus and ovaries).

5. Semenya is legally married to a woman.

6. Semenya identifies personally as a woman and always has.

If all are true, is 6 what has swayed the CAS, effectively disregarding 1-4 (5 doesn't matter)?

Yes, that is correct wrote:

Karma Police wrote:

Can someone tell me if these statements are true or false.

1. Semenya has internal testes.

2. Whether it's XY or XXY, Semenya has a Y chromosome.

3. Even when on hormone treatment, Semenya had a testosterone level 3 x a normal woman, and it is now many times higher.

4. Semenya has no female reproductive organs (uterus and ovaries).

5. Semenya is legally married to a woman.

6. Semenya identifies personally as a woman and always has.

If all are true, is 6 what has swayed the CAS, effectively disregarding 1-4 (5 doesn't matter)?

So if she has testes, a Y chromosome, no female reproductive organs and testosterone levels 10-15 times that of a normal woman, how is it fair for her to compete as a woman?

The CAS never said it was "fair". In fact, they deliberately stripped "fair play" out of it when they (mis)quoted the 4th Olympian principle the second time around (§513). They concluded that the IAAF regulations (rule 141) say that if you are legally recognised as female, you have to be allowed in a women's competition unless there are provably "substantial performance advantages" to the contrary, and then listened to a bunch of so-called "scientists" argue about what sort of advantages existed (for all HA athletes in general, not just Chand), ultimately concluding there was no "proof" that the HA regulations served a necessary and proportional purpose on the matter. Pretty much fait accompli, after the initial boundaries of debate were drawn.

So it's all the IAAF's fault in my mind, but they could fix it in one fell swoop just by changing the regulations to allow an "open" or "intersex" division, which the CAS panel took pains (multiple times) to note didn't exist currently. But do you think the IAAF power-brokers are going to act like this, given their propensity?

The only other possibility is that some non-intersex female will take the IAAF to the CAS based upon the premise that allowing intersex athletes in women's competitions transgresses some important IAAF/IOC principle (like the last words of Olympian principle #4: fair play). The IAAF probably already could have challenged the CAS decision (Chand) in Federal Swiss Court based upon the misquoted Olympian principle spoliating the verdict, but again, the IAAF brass isn't interested in "winning" if you believe the conspiracy theories.

ALL THAT j wrote:

The IAAF probably already could have challenged the CAS decision (Chand) in Federal Swiss Court based upon the misquoted Olympian principle spoliating the verdict

I much agree with you, but I feel you want to use the word "vitiate" rather than spoliate (it doesn't really mean "to spoil"). IMO the Swiss Feds would have at least taken the case, as the matter doesn't contain much ado about expertise in sports law, but is closer to general public policy.

Prof Ross Tucker continues to tweet that hermaphroditism cannot exist in humans. He challenges you to look up the "biological definition" of the term.

Tweet: Look up the biological definition of hermaphrodite. That cannot exist on human physiology. Ignorance

Anxious to alleviate my poor ignorance, I dutifully did "look up" said biological definition.

hermaphrodite

having both male and female reproductive organs in one individual; also known as monecious; contrast to diecious

Source: Noland, George B. 1983. General Biology, 11th Edition. St. Louis.

But I do think I will start saying "monecious", just to irk him.

So at least in 1983, the term "hermaphrodite" was noncontroversial even in "General Biology", and indubitably applicable to humans. Almost every (general usage) dictionary you can find will repeat this. Yet according to "new-thinking" (sometime after 1984), it has been "deprecated" in humans by some bio-authorities, because humans don't commonly have it as part of the life cycle (as fish do).

Fortunately, there are textbooks not capitulating to new-think post-1984. For instance, we have "Developmental Biology" by Scott Gilbert, in its 10th edition (http://10e.devbio.com/article.php?id=266), published June 2013.

Hermaphroditism is when an animal has both testicular and ovarian tissues. (to my understanding, thus not applicable to Semenya lacking ovaries, but that's not the point)

OK, so Gilbert is only interested in the animal kingdom, while other authorities also use the term for plants, but Gilbert serves to point out that Prof Ross Tucker is only spouting one view regarding the "biological definition" of hermaphroditism, namely that of the new-think generation.

Metric Miler wrote:

However she is a girl, because she was raised a girl and feels she is a girl. Why people here cannot just let that be is beyond me.

Because the premise is moronic. If Semenya is a girl, it is because of biological characteristics, not how she was raised or feels.

But that is a separate issue in any case, a spurious distraction from the question of whether someone with testes has a right to compete in a sporting class created for those without them.

Leave politics the F out of it. The sport is drowning in politics already.

serves to point out that Prof Ross Tucker is only spouting one view regarding the "biological definition" of hermaphroditism, namely that of the new-think generation.

ALL THAT j wrote: serves to point out that Prof Ross Tucker is only spouting one view regarding the "biological definition" of hermaphroditism, namely that of the new-think generation.

aabbccddee123 wrote: Tucker is also spouting out the 'new-think' definitions and usage of "gender" etc. coincidence?

Don't be too harsh on Tucker. He is probably just regurgitating what he once learned, never stopping to question whether it was universal, or some ersatz social construct/experiment in re-verbiage from his forlorn instructor. That's why it's a multi-generational battle, and they are well-planned for it.