Hand her the gold medal now - Caster Semenya complete ridiculous 50.76/1:58.46 double in span of 50 minutes

Dog Is My Co-Pilot wrote:

"Prevalence of hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD in our athletic population is approximately 7 per 1000, which is 140 times higher than expected in the general population."

Is this disorder only one form of intersex? Because obviously that figure is 0.7%, not 12%.

Well spotted.

Again I am no expert but it would seem that 46,XY disorder of sex development is just one type of intersex condition. 46 referring to the number of chromosomes and XY referring to there being one female and one male chromosome present. That said, 46,XY is exactly the 'set up' that would be present in a person with androgen insensitivity such as Caster Semenya. So they may be related.

The researchers have apparently just pulled out this figure because the 140x prevelance in their sample is obviously astounding.

Metric Miler wrote:

100 elite women at the world championships were intersex, but nobody watching could tell and there was no uproar.

Err, that's the point, "nobody watching could tell" because the intersex characteristics obviously weren't performance enhancing, unlike Semenya's.

Huh... wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

100 elite women at the world championships were intersex, but nobody watching could tell and there was no uproar.

Err, that's the point, "nobody watching could tell" because the intersex characteristics obviously weren't performance enhancing, unlike Semenya's.

"obviously weren't performance enhancing or obvious, unlike Semenya's."

Huh... wrote:

Huh... wrote:

Err, that's the point, "nobody watching could tell" because the intersex characteristics obviously weren't performance enhancing, unlike Semenya's.

"obviously weren't performance enhancing or obvious, unlike Semenya's."

You don't understand statistical evidence.

The proportion of intersex people in the general population is 1.7%. Less than that will be intersex women (identify as females/female body type), probably about half based on the sex distribution of normal people.

The proportion of intersex women in athletics is estimated to be about 12%, as per that study.

12÷1.7 =~7 to 12÷0.85 =~14

So that means that there are 7 to 14 times the proportion of intersex women in elite athletics than the normal population. The world championships being the highest level of competition in the sport.

So one can conclude that having an intersex condition can make it more likely that a woman will be able to become an elite athlete. There were literally 100 intersex women at the 2011 WC when you'd expect there to be around 10.

And nobody cares because it isn't as 'obvious' as in Semenya's case.

I'd argue if Semenya stayed out of the gym nobody would make much of a fuss at all. Her pronounced muscular figure seems to be the factor most are concerned with. And it is safe to say she wasn't born like that; the girl lifts.

I don't know if you saw the women's 800m world indoor final, but two of the medallists had quite masculine features similar to Semenya. However they lacked her imposing figure. I wonder if Semenya had skinny arms would even half the fuss ever have been made.

Metric Miler wrote:

This is true, statistically there does seem to be an advantage.

Ok we're making progress.

I never denied there is an advantage either, as you said, I have been neutral. I think it is enjoyable and good to have at least somewhat intelligent discussion about interesting scientific and moral topics such as intersex women in sport. Maybe I like to offer the alternative viewpoint to stimulate conversation. Maybe that differs from the average LR poster who doesn't want to think beyond ideas that make them uncomfortable.

And we take a step back. You have speculated over and over in previous pages that there may not be an advantage. I will say again, you're trying too hard to be the voice of reason and neutral arbiter. So much so that you are ignoring common sense and creating argument where there should be none. There should not be an argument of whether some types of intersex athletes have an advantage. This is plain to see and you believe it too. Yet in your quest to create discussion you have steered it in the wrong direction. Only recently have you started to change course.

"Should we CARE that intersex athletes have an advantage and are way over represented in women's athletics." That seems to be the crux of your new argument. It is relevant and worth discussing, but it's philosophical and cannot be answered by all the studies in the world.

So leaving the advantage question behind I'll address the philosophical question of if we should care. Continuing with your Bolt analogy, is Bolt's advantage over other men the same as Caster's advantage over women? By broadly saying "genetics", yes they're the same. But that answer also applies to a man's advantage over a woman which is universally accepted as unfair. In fact, gender is the ONLY genetic trait universally accepted in athletics as an unfair advantage. My opinion is, if we universally care about a man's advantage over a woman, then we should also care about an intersex advantage over a woman.

Now your response may be, "but the advantage is probably smaller, we don't see intersex winning everything and setting records, and there's not many of them". To that I would say it doesn't matter. As it stands we have a male division and an everyone else division. This current system is unfair to normal females. Even though the intersex population is tiny it appears their advantage is quite large. To make it fair for females we move intersex over to compete in the male side, making it unfair to intersex. It's going to be unfair for someone. Make it unfair for the significantly smaller population.

One open category makes it unfair for everyone not male and it goes against the universal gender divisions. That idea should never be brought up.

An intersex category creates the problem of having an upper and lower boundary. We are having a hard enough time coming up with one gender cutoff, two would be a fiasco. More importantly, an intersex division would just not go over well socially and it's not feasible. Do you split the division only in pro, or also in ncaa and in HS? In the real world it would compound the problems tenfold.

1 2 3 green wrote:

More importantly, an intersex division would just not go over well socially

On the other hand attitudes change and many things are accepted socially that would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago. But I don't think that is the way to go and the arguments about lack of a T cap for males I think is an interesting one (brought up by Chand in her defence on the basis that it was discriminatory).

Metric Miler wrote:

And nobody cares because it isn't as 'obvious' as in Semenya's case.

I'd argue if Semenya stayed out of the gym nobody would make much of a fuss at all. Her pronounced muscular figure seems to be the factor most are concerned with. And it is safe to say she wasn't born like that; the girl lifts.

I don't know if you saw the women's 800m world indoor final, but two of the medallists had quite masculine features similar to Semenya. However they lacked her imposing figure. I wonder if Semenya had skinny arms would even half the fuss ever have been made.

Before Caster wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

And nobody cares because it isn't as 'obvious' as in Semenya's case.

I'd argue if Semenya stayed out of the gym nobody would make much of a fuss at all. Her pronounced muscular figure seems to be the factor most are concerned with. And it is safe to say she wasn't born like that; the girl lifts.

I don't know if you saw the women's 800m world indoor final, but two of the medallists had quite masculine features similar to Semenya. However they lacked her imposing figure. I wonder if Semenya had skinny arms would even half the fuss ever have been made.

http://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/IAAF+Golden+League+_jbg8gsau6vl.jpg

Also look up Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui

Well no, I think for me the statistical evidence is a new piece of information that has pushed me more towards accepting there is perhaps a sizeable advantage for intersex women over normal women on average.I have no preconceptions or prejudices. I did not set out in this thread to 'prove' that Semenya has no advantage. I tried to go through and explore different avenues. Under the torrent of assault against Semenya (mostly personal attacks) I found myself defending her. I was not trying too hard to be the voice of reason, that is your opinion. There is little 'common sense' to be had when talking about topics of scientific disagreement and poor research, such as the action of serum testosterone in people with androgen insensitivity.Speculating how the Semenya may be affected by her condition is just that, speculation. Like I said, muscle mass (which lots have got caught up on here) is not conclusive evidence of an unfair athletic advantage; she has bigger muscles than most mid-d men and they are way faster. I personally believe if she lost some upper body mass she would be quicker still, but that is a different matter.Of course, the question of what constitutes an unfair advantage is an ethical one. But it does have a scientific relevance in this case. The size of the advantage has to be determined, perhaps on an individual basis. It for sure will not be the same magnitude for all intersex women.'Gender' (you mean sex) cannot be called the only accepted unfair advantage, for the reason that sex is a wide collection of attributes of which if we could properly pinpoint what makes males athletically better than females there would be no need for this discussion. I don't think moving intersex women into the male category is the right thing to do. These people are not men, there is far more to being male than high T. Medically, they could easily be 90% female for example. And I think historically, this statement:

It's going to be unfair for someone. Make it unfair for the significantly smaller population.

is a dangerous one.

Whatever happens, the CAS ruling puts the IAAF in a difficult position. T may still be the answer but it needs to be proved. As it stands, this looks to be something that is just accepted until all the athletes make a big deal out of it. 12% is still small enough to ignore. The IAAF is good at pretending there aren't problems in their sport.

1 2 3 green wrote:

Ok we're making progress.

Mate, 10/10 for trying, you're a patient person.

I was able to access the university library pub med today. I looked up the 2011 study and found this. 849 elite female athletes were tested. 5 dopers were removed from final data5 DSD females were removed. (Apparently about 15% were removed due to oral contraceptives... leaving 717.So.... 5 DSD females out of 717 would be about 7 out of every 1,000.It then says...

Prevalence of hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD in our athletic population is approximately 7 per 1000, which is 140 times higher than expected in the general population.

Doing the math...

Hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD in elite athletes = 7 per 1,000

Hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD in population = 1 per 20,000

From other sources

Intersex = 1 in 4,000 US/Europe

Intersex = 1 in 2,000 in Africa/SE Asia

BOTTOM LINE

It's pretty clear that Hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD conveys a performance advantage because otherwise the percentage of DSD females would be about the same in the general population as in elite female athletes.

Awesome good find.

Clearly there is a link between that syndrome and enhanced performance.

The frequency is still small enough for the IAAF to probably brush it aside. Same number of DSDs as dopers though. Very interesting.

We will see how Caster, Wambui and Niyonsaba do this year. Maybe a 1 2 3?

Metric Miler wrote:

We will see how Caster, Wambui and Niyonsaba do this year. Maybe a 1 2 3?

Semenya should win the 800m easily. I doubt if she will try for a world record. I get a very strong impression from watching her race that her coach has ordered her to hang back and kick only enough win so as not to arouse too much negative press. She'll probably run off the lead and then kick just enough to win comfortably.

She might not have enough pure speed to win the 400, but that remains to be seen. She'll medal for sure. She'll win the 1500 as well.

Of course, getting through multiple heats could be a factor.

While it is true that Wambui has a WIC bronze and WJC gold -- on the other hand Wambui has not yet broken 2:00, so may be a long(er) shot for a medal in Rio. On the other hand, were this a beauty contest, Wambui would win, hands down.

There's no way a world class tomato will beat the mediocre potato.

Bert Parks wrote:

On the other hand, were this a beauty contest, Wambui would win, hands down.

Close call:

first place?

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-epa05223527-francine-niyonsaba-of-burundi-celebrates-her-first-place-100691413.html

And...

http://a406.idata.over-blog.com/0/14/00/35/photos-athl-tes-internationaux/mutola.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39453000/jpg/_39453363_030828guevara203b1.jpg

Let's just call it a draw.