She's an oxygen thief. wrote:
an actual journalist wrote:This shows in one paragraph what a clown and non-"journalist" this person is.
I won't even bother explaining why. As a "journalist" she should be embarrassed.
That clown and non-"journalist" is nothing but a troll, good reply from Rojo but dunno why he wasted his time on her, should have just ignored her and not given her oxygen.
Have the LetsRun sleuths and trolls worked out who this woman is yet?
The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
funny stuff is going on!!!!
Tucker is a sociologist wrote:
tracklady wrote:Rowbury and Ross Tucker are the heroes Letsrun needs!
http://sportsscientists.com/2016/07/caster-semenya-debate/Ross Tucker who wants to medicate intersex athletes so that they can run in the female category?
You've been duped.
women's sports are finished. Done.
1000 wrote:
Pure females with the aid of steroids would be able to level the playing field,
There's a 10 percent difference between the performances of women and men, regardless of the use of steroids or any other drugs used by women.
Karma Police wrote:
The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
Thank you for expressing this with great clarity.
This is exactly what needs to be done.
YES exactly wrote:
Karma Police wrote:The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
Thank you for expressing this with great clarity.
This is exactly what needs to be done.
Isn't it just a matter of wiping the inside of your mouth with a qtip to get some skin cells, then test them? That wouldn't be invasive at all.
I have a Y wrote:
YES exactly wrote:Thank you for expressing this with great clarity.
This is exactly what needs to be done.
Isn't it just a matter of wiping the inside of your mouth with a qtip to get some skin cells, then test them? That wouldn't be invasive at all.
Not sure if you need a blood test, but they do blood tests anyway. It wold be one of those two.
Either way, simple and non-invasive. And above all, fair.
We get your point. The decision is not in our hands. Let it rest already.
So, did the antagonist corresponding with dojo and LRC go home DEVASTATED??
Karma Police wrote:
The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
I wondered if that would work. Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
Or say one in T over 10 and the other is everyone else.
Rojo, did she ever get back to you with a coherent counter argument, or was it pretty much limited to name calling?
rojo wrote:
Karma Police wrote:The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
I wondered if that would work. Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
Or say one in T over 10 and the other is everyone else.
That sounds fancy.
Which category are you in? Are you a T over 10???
Karma Police wrote:
The problem is within IAAF's rules. The CAS interpreted them a certain way, then demanded evidence that T improves performance.
So the IAAF needs to simply change its rules.
The whole thing is just so simple. If you have a Y chromosome, you can't compete in women's events. It's determined by a DNA/Chromosome test. No arguments, no uncomfortable inspections.
As Rojo said, the PC women are ruining sport for chromosomally normal (XX) women.
rojo wrote:
I wondered if that would work. Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
I think you mean one is XX, and the other is everyone else.
Or say one in T over 10 and the other is everyone else.
Not sure what you mean by this.
Athletics Illustrated completely agrees.
Caster Semenya should not be permitted to compete in women's sports without have her/his T levels managed:
rojo wrote:
I wondered if that would work. Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
No, it can't be one is xy and the other is everyone else, because the women's division would be XX, XYY, XYYY, XQRST, and the women's only division would vanish. If you meant to say one division XX, and the other is everything else, then yes, that would be a good solution.
rojo wrote:Or say one in T over 10 and the other is everyone else.
No, because (1) then you would have all kinds of XY doped males in the women's division, and the women's only division would vanish. (2) T over 10 is way higher than the level for normal females and would cater to males in the women's events.
If the libs want to call the intersex athletes like Semenya female, fine: just create a division for them in the Paralympics. Libs have long said that para-athletes are simply "differently abled," so there should be no stigma attached to competing there.
In fact, many of the para's are now faster than their non-para counterparts. Take Pistorious, for example--his artificial legs were proven to give him an advantage over biological legs. Likewise, wheelchair racers go faster than non-para runners.
Similarly, females like Semenya, with elevated T, can go faster than females without testes. She's simply differently abled, and should be put in a separate category.
rojo wrote:
Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
It will work with only two categories of competitors. In fact, that's the only working solution.
However, it's not as simple as just closing the female category for all persons with a Y chromosome (XY, XXY, etc). On the Y chromosome there is an SRY-gene which is what causes maleness. Normally this gene only resides on the Y chromosome. So disallowing any person with a Y chromosome (XY, XXY, etc.) to compete in the female category is a necessary restriction. But it's not sufficient. In some cases, the SRY-gene can transfer to an X chromosome. As since the SRY-gene is truly the male gene, it will turn on a lot of male characteristics even if it sits on an X chromosome.
Here's a pic of a person with XX chromosome but with an SRY-gene (Warning: looks like a nude male):
http://images.slideplayer.com/18/6200700/slides/slide_50.jpgSo the female category cannot be restricted to persons with only XX chromosomes. It must be restricted to persons without the SRY-gene. And that was exactly what they did 15 years ago before the LGBT agenda started pushing their views.
matthewXCountry wrote:
The major difficulty I have is that there really is no scientific evidence that elevated "natural" testosterone levels are much of an advantage in women's athletics. When the testosterone-reducing practice was tossed out, it wasn't tossed out for good, they were just asked to produce the scientific evidence. If the iaaf or the ioc produced such evidence [comissioned a study] the rule could be reinstated. I might support such a rule then, but not now. "Look at the 800m" is not scientific evidence.
Potentially this is a fair question, especially if the people in question have Complete AIS but a bit of common sense looking at Semenya's performances since 2009 suggest that she does respond in a classic manner to Testosterone levels.
As I have said previously, asking for "scientific evidence" seems to be a tactic that only deems some kind of scientific evidence in scope, here is what Google Scholar produces from a search term testosterone women sport
https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=testosterone+women+sport&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=clarifier of sexes wrote:
rojo wrote:Just say there are two categories of competitors. One is xy and the other is everyone else. That way they avoid all talk of male and female.
It will work with only two categories of competitors. In fact, that's the only working solution.
However, it's not as simple as just closing the female category for all persons with a Y chromosome (XY, XXY, etc). On the Y chromosome there is an SRY-gene which is what causes maleness. Normally this gene only resides on the Y chromosome. So disallowing any person with a Y chromosome (XY, XXY, etc.) to compete in the female category is a necessary restriction. But it's not sufficient. In some cases, the SRY-gene can transfer to an X chromosome. As since the SRY-gene is truly the male gene, it will turn on a lot of male characteristics even if it sits on an X chromosome.
Here's a pic of a person with XX chromosome but with an SRY-gene (Warning: looks like a nude male):
http://images.slideplayer.com/18/6200700/slides/slide_50.jpgSo the female category cannot be restricted to persons with only XX chromosomes. It must be restricted to persons without the SRY-gene. And that was exactly what they did 15 years ago before the LGBT agenda started pushing their views.
Not really sure there is going to be a groundswell of support to test every female competitor, though.
