It is a legitimate question and is neither racist not sexist. The participation of males in women's sport is an issue that is crucial to the future of women's sport.
Your obsession with this issue makes me wonder if you have been cheated on by an intersex partner. You seem like nothing else matters to you.
There is probably a lot you don't have a clue about.
To be honest, I don't think Jonathan really was thrilled to ask the question but I insisted he do it and no one else was there. If I was there, I would have asked.
The issue is he didn't ask specifically if she was eligible for women's 800s at the elite level. An interesex athlete can always run in an open 800 or the male 800 so the question wasn't quite specific enough if we are talking tehnicalities.
To be honest, I don't think Jonathan really was thrilled to ask the question but I insisted he do it and no one else was there. If I was there, I would have asked.
The issue is he didn't ask specifically if she was eligible for women's 800s at the elite level. An interesex athlete can always run in an open 800 or the male 800 so the question wasn't quite specific enough if we are talking tehnicalities.
What an ugly post.
It is apparent that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Why would otber journalists be afraid to ask? I dont get your statement.
are you being daft? i can think of around 100 reasons a journalist from a big media company would be afraid of asking such questions. Pretty sensitive and highly charged subject currently.
That's why no journalist works for big media, only pundits do.
are you being daft? i can think of around 100 reasons a journalist from a big media company would be afraid of asking such questions. Pretty sensitive and highly charged subject currently.
That's why no journalist works for big media, only pundits do.
Are you effing kidding me? Gault is no journalist. Big media? You sound like an idiot
So you don't think you should have to do what your employers ask you, but only what you want?
Your employer should trust you to do the job they hired your for. No real journalist. Let me repeat - no REAL journalist let’s his publisher dictate the question to ask. Gault has proven he’s a fraud and coward.
Are you a journalist so that you know this for a fact? Gault did what his employer asked. If he thought it was wrong he could have said so. But he probably doesn't share your largely hysterical opinions.
Your employer should trust you to do the job they hired your for. No real journalist. Let me repeat - no REAL journalist let’s his publisher dictate the question to ask. Gault has proven he’s a fraud and coward.
Are you a journalist so that you know this for a fact? Gault did what his employer asked. If he thought it was wrong he could have said so. But he probably doesn't share your largely hysterical opinions.
There are no REAL journalists. They've all gone to work for the NeoCon-driven Deep State.
Your employer should trust you to do the job they hired your for. No real journalist. Let me repeat - no REAL journalist let’s his publisher dictate the question to ask. Gault has proven he’s a fraud and coward.
Are you a journalist so that you know this for a fact? Gault did what his employer asked. If he thought it was wrong he could have said so. But he probably doesn't share your largely hysterical opinions.
The experiment requires you to continue, Mr. Gault. You must go on.
SJWs. Please educate yourself on the subject instead of just calling for your default outrage. Gault is not just trying to shame someone as World Athletics has rules on what events they can participate in.
It's not a fetish. It's not someone being trans. It's a condition people are born with, i.e. intersex. Ambiguous genitals in some cases etc. Some of the people with intersex (which is not that uncommon, I think it's around 1 in 1000) do not know they are intersex until later in life, may go through all of childhood not knowing.
I'm calling bull sh!t. on this post.
I don't know where you got your info from or did you make it up yourself?
I don't know which bit you think is BS, but look it up yourself. Why would I make it up? Geez.
Intersex people are individuals born with any of several sex characteristics including chromosome patterns, gonads, or genitals that, according to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, "do not f...
I think a lot of journalists would have been afraid to ask. It's the elephant in the room. Kudos to Jon for asking the question in a tactful way.
Cringe.
Don't mistake pushing an agenda for journalism. He was asking very intentional questions to serve an agenda.
Say you're hellbent on this stuff, you should still be upset by the line of questioning. He could have asked if the athlete feels they have an advantage or something along those lines but was more interested in othering them. That's not journalism. LRC has an obvious agenda and those quick to praise it should be asking if they're going about it in the right way.
The broad term "intersex" is not helpful in WA discussions. The WA rule in question refers to a specific condition known as 46 XY 5-ARD. The easiest way to describe these individuals at birth is: They are males with ambiguous genitals, therefore they are mistakenly identified as females. (Hey, you've got a 50 percent chance of being wrong when you make a guess based on ambiguous data.) They might change gender identity later when their male characteristics become more obvious (see below), or they might not as is the case with Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba, and others discussed at LetsRun.
I found this a moment ago in a medical journal article about 46 XY 5-ARD individuals and others with Differences of Sexual Development. "All three patients with 5ARD had ambiguous genitalia since birth. They were assigned female gender at birth. Male gender had been reassigned in these patients at the age of 3, 13, and 17 years, respectively."
I think a lot of journalists would have been afraid to ask. It's the elephant in the room. Kudos to Jon for asking the question in a tactful way.
Yes, he asked. But he didn't really get anywhere because that runner lied to him and said they could run the 800, when of course they can't because they are a biological male.
She didn't exactly, lie. Jonathan didn't ask "would you be allowed to run the 800 at this world championships?" He asked "Can you run the 800" which is actually a pretty silly question. Of course she can run two laps in training or a local all-comers meet. If you want to ask a hard, un-tactful question, ask it, don't try to weasile out of it.
The governing body enabling this charade ought to be ashamed of itself. They're implying they're not sure if men have an advantage over women in the steeplechase. May want to check the barrier heights in the respective races. They also implied they didn't know if that was true for 800 and 1500m events in the past. Made reactive changes after biological females were robbed and humiliated. Absolutely insufferable but we see many cringe worthy things within humanity daily that it's not too surprising.
Or an unfair advantage in the 200m. Give me a break.
Mind you, I have questions marks over one of the finalists in the women's 400.
SJWs. Please educate yourself on the subject instead of just calling for your default outrage. Gault is not just trying to shame someone as World Athletics has rules on what events they can participate in.
Except Rojo said as much. Gault was instructed to ask the question in an intentional way. Instructed to do it in a gotcha-type fashion. That's not journalism. He's pushing the LRC agenda instead of asking questions that could actually highlight a perceived problem from this website. Even if you're supportive of what LRC is pushing, they're going about it all wrong.
I think a lot of journalists would have been afraid to ask. It's the elephant in the room. Kudos to Jon for asking the question in a tactful way.
Cringe.
Don't mistake pushing an agenda for journalism. He was asking very intentional questions to serve an agenda.
Say you're hellbent on this stuff, you should still be upset by the line of questioning. He could have asked if the athlete feels they have an advantage or something along those lines but was more interested in othering them. That's not journalism. LRC has an obvious agenda and those quick to praise it should be asking if they're going about it in the right way.
What you call "an agenda" is seeking the facts. The athlete is apparently DSD and therefore not eligible to run in the events prescribed by WA. Bluntly - she is a he. In women's sport, that is a very relevant piece of information. Sport is currently in a quandary about how to deal with this issue. It isn't a matter in which the athlete's right to privacy trumps the public's right to know.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
