LetsRun slammed via FiveThirtyEight

Justice4caster wrote:

I doubt she has any real advantage, otherwise CAS would have ruled different. IAAF had no proof that she had an unfair advantage.

It's sad that people don't like her just because she doesn't fit their mold of a pretty girl.

We ought to be tolerant and treat everyone with the dignity and respect that a human being deserves.

You doubt? That is your argument?

Testosterone differences are the only reason we have female and male categories. Male penises don't help men's ability to run at all.

Almost never do you see a high school runner who has not trained at an elite level, destroy a field in the 800m like Caster did. Her elevated testosterone clearly gave her an advantage.

There will be two runners in the women's 800m tonight who you will see have clear advantages and are built completely different. It is not fair to the many female runners who have put the time and effort into training, but do not have the testosterone advantages.

So until it is proven otherwise, let her compete in peace.

If being an SJW means I stick up for people who are different from me, then I'm proud to be one. This is just like in NC when their laws discriminated against transgender persons, most people disapproved.

Justice4caster wrote:

So until it is proven otherwise, let her compete in peace.

If being an SJW means I stick up for people who are different from me, then I'm proud to be one. This is just like in NC when their laws discriminated against transgender persons, most people disapproved.

I am not sure what you mean "this is just like".

To be clear on your opinion, say Caitlyn Jenner were to have transitioned in 1976 (or whenever Bruce won the decathlon), Would it have been discriminatory to say that Caitlyn who had spent years training and getting stronger with the benefits of a man's testosterone should not be able to compete in women's events at the Olympic in every sprint and hurdle event and every throw and jump?

All these articles pretty much say the same thing:

1. She is going to win big.

2. She is different.

If she is so different that you know she is going to win, then she probably shouldn't be competing.

If I was Caster I would think really hard about just doing well enough to win and not make it uncompetitive... then retire.

This article in 538 seems to me to offer the look of a rigorous, comprehensive examination of the issue, in favor of lifting all requirements on women's athletics, but it is not actually rigorous, because its reasoning at the crux of the issue is surprisingly weak. For instance, she dismisses the notion that Semenya could simply compete in the men's division as "that seems like shunning." Why is it shunning to compete in the premier league? Or again, she makes a misleading analogy between the trolley car and policing hyperandrogenism. The trolley car KILLS people in either case. Placing limits on testosterone PROTECTS the vast, vast majority of women athletes, significantly more than 99.5% of the female population (percentage without these sorts of sex differences) and indeed, with the T levels at 10 n/m+, or something like 5 standard deviations above the abnormally high cystic levels, that is well above 99.73%ile (3rd SD), while still providing several different possibilities for either treatment or competition against the men. Without such limits, very few women could ever win an athletic scholarship, since most spots would be taken by men with a simple declaration. Even if the latter were disallowed (and it has recently been allowed by the administration), hyperandrogenic athletes will certainly dominate all women's competition.

The travesty with this topic is that many extremists DO NOT understand the athletic differences between men and women. One SJW (don't have the link) commented on how Keitany was 19th overall at the NYC marathon, beating about 28k men in the process and 'only' 15 minutes back of Biwott.

And another said that men who 'identify' as women should be allowed to compete in the women's category. I'm not making this stuff up.

Justice4caster wrote:

I doubt she has any real advantage, otherwise CAS would have ruled different. IAAF had no proof that she had an unfair advantage.

It's sad that people don't like her just because she doesn't fit their mold of a pretty girl.

We ought to be tolerant and treat everyone with the dignity and respect that a human being deserves.

I don't know if this is a troll or not, but you are wrong in the first line and the second paragraph is a convenient and unbased opinion of what people think (similar to playing the 'woman' card).

I think Semenya has handled this situation tremendously and with dignity, which is a tall order in itself. However, competing untreated, with internal testes, provides an unfair advantage through testosterone.

The fact that some people are saying men and women should compete in the same division is idiotic and will literally mean the end of women's sports.

Perhaps the most uncomfortable truth that this controversy forces us to confront is that there’s no such thing as a level playing field in sport. As much as we like the idea of athletes winning through hard work, guts and spirit, the fact is, much of it comes down to born talent. Most competitors never had a chance.

Not sure where the above comes from but the notions of "a level playing field" and "NOT everyone has a chance" are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed a level playing field GUARANTEES that 99.9+% of the population will never have a chance.