I just imagine at this point there’s a huge space around Gault in the mixed zone as the other journalists try to stand as far away as possible so nobody thinks he’s associated with them.
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.
It isn't a "gotcha" question. The athlete is subject to rules that limit the events she can compete in. She isn't being accused of anything. The debate in sport generally, as well as on this website, shows that there is a wide interest in this issue.
I just imagine at this point there’s a huge space around Gault in the mixed zone as the other journalists try to stand as far away as possible so nobody thinks he’s associated with them.
Journalists don't necessarily hold your opinions. They are also used to being contentious. That is even part of their job. They aren't there to please the public. I say that as a former journalist. So what you "imagine" will remain in your fan fantasy.
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."
To add to your excellent points: as that Wikipedia entry shows, the term "intersex" is a vague, unscientific and misleading term.
The term "intersex" has been used to describe the approximately 40 different and distinct medical conditions that are disorders or differences of human sex development as well as a number of other conditions that are not DSDs. It's a term that in my view does more to sow confusion and spread misunderstanding about DSDs and human sex differences generally than it does to shed light on these matters.
Conditions that have been called "intersex" over time include the following ones that only occur in males: hypospadias (the male urethra opening in a place other than the tip of the penis); very small penis, aka micro-penis; cryptorchidism (undescended testes, which is present in 30% of males born prematurely, and 3% of males born at full-term ); and gynecomastia (development of excess breast tissue in males, aka "man boobs" or "moobs").
Conditions that have been called "intersex" over time also include the following ones that occur only in females and never result in genital ambiguity or confusion about the sex of affected persons: female-only DSDs - such as Turner syndrome (45,X0); female trisomy, aka triple X (47, XXX); MRKH syndrome (in which females are born without a uterus and with underdeveloped vaginas).
Some queer theory-gender identity ideologues also claim that any physical abnormalities in the primary sex organs of female humans - vaginal and uterine anomalies, premature ovarian failure, "incompetent cervix" or "cervical insufficiency" that causes some pregnant women to miscarry or give birth prematurely - are "intersex" traits too. Just yesterday, I read an article in which the author claimed that girls and women with thick hymens that did not naturally wear away over the course of fetal and early life development and activity as they usually do have a DSD and should therefore be considered part of "the intersex community."
As the Wikipedia entry on "intersex" shows, some contend that women who have atypical maternal sex hormones during pregnancy due to medications prescribed by physicians should be counted as "intersex" too.
Many adherents of queer theory and gender ideology today also say that PCOS and other female-only medical conditions that cause women and girls to have higher than normal natural testosterone should be considered "intersex" as well.
Another condition commonly called and considered "intersex" historically - and still characterized as "intersex" by many today - is late-onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia in females. LOCAH is a condition of adrenal gland dysfunction that has wide ranging effects on endocrine function, including causing females to produce levels of testosterone above the normal female range. But as the "late onset" part suggests, LOCAH doesn't emerge until years after birth - usually not until adolescence or adulthood.
Female persons with LOCAH were born with normally-developed female genitals, and the usual and customary female reproductive organs, female physiology and female sex chromosomes and genetics. As is the case with those who have female-only DSDs like Turner's syndrome and MRKH, and female-only health conditions like PCOS, and nearly all females who experience pregnancy, the sex of women and girls with LOCAH is not ambiguous at birth. It's never ambiguous or in question at other time of their lives, either.
Nevertheless, those who use the unscientific term "intersex" instead of disorder/difference of sex development typically characterize LOCAH in females as an "intersex" condition. Because by doing so, they get to gin up the numbers to give the impression that disorders of human sex development which result in an atypical combination of sex characteristics aka "intersex" are far, far more common than they are.
LOCAH is by far the most common of the so-called "intersex" conditions, accounting for 75-90% of all cases of "intersex." Remove LOCAH from the equation, and it becomes clear that disorders of sex development in humans are extremely rare. Look closely at the 40 different conditions that are legitimately classed as DSDs, and it also becomes obvious that even rarer are the small number of DSDs which result in genital ambiguity and/or a mix of physical traits for which the descriptor "intersex" might seem apt.
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."
Actually, the WA rules in question don't just refer to XY 5-ARD. The WA regulations in place currently (and since mid-late 2019) state that they apply to XY 5-ARD as well as a handful of other specific DSDs that are similar in overall effect to XY 5-ARD.
Most of the DSDs listed in the WA's current regulations regarding eligibility of DSD athletes in women's competition occur solely in 46,XY persons. Moreover, the CAS panel in the Semenya said it approved the WA's current regulations on the basis that they would be applied and enforced only in the case of 46,XY athletes competing in women's events.
Last summer in response to questions WA got about Mboma and Masilingi, the lead attorney for the WA in the Semenya case, Jonathan Taylor, speaking on behalf of WA confirmed to the press that the rules were only being enforced in the case of athletes competing in women's athletics with XY sex chromosomes and natural testosterone levels that are normally found exclusively in persons who have functioning testes that pump out testosterone well above the normal female range as adolescent and adult males typically do. (The only females who could possibly have T levels in the male range or approaching the male range would be seriously ill with life-threatening cancer resulting in testosterone-secreting tumors, and thus not in shape and health to be competing in elite athletics.)
However, the current WA regulations as written do state that they apply to a couple of DSDs that occur, or can occur, in persons with sex chromosomes other than 46,XY. Such as those with mixed sex chromosome mosaicism (XX/XY) and persons with ovotesticular DSD, an extremely rare DSD that occurs most commonly in individuals whose sex chromosomes are 46,XX.
Athletes with XY 5-ARD and PAIS competing in women's sports seem to be the biggest concern of WA because in the past several decades, athletes with those specific XY DSDs have turned out for women's elite track in greatest numbers - and some of them like Semenya, Niyonsaba, Wambui, Mboma and Masilingi have dominated and "slayed" in competition against female athletes.
Moreover, athletes with those two particular XY DSDs (Chand and Semenya) have famously fought the IAAF/WA regulations in court - and the Chand and Semenya cases have been used by many in the press and politics to try to make the IAAF/WA look racist, sexist, colonialist, oppressive, unreasonable and otherwise bad in the court of public opinion.
However, I get the impression that the WA's current regulations were written as they were in order to 1) give WA the widest possible flexibility and latitude to apply the regulations to all DSD athletes competing in women's events who have functioning testes, male levels of T and at least partial male-typical physical response to androgens ; and 2) head off accusations - and lawsuits - alleging that WA devised its regulations for the sole purpose of targeting athletes with XY 5-ARD and PAIS and singling out them, and only them, for the kinds of treatment that XY DSD athletes in women's track like Chand and Semenya have portrayed as unjust discrimination and a violation of their human rights.
just as I figured...he's carrying the water for your racism/sexism. Good god Does gault have any backbone. he's pathetic. he would've been a 'just following orders" type
Did you just compare Rojo to Hitler and Gault to Eichmann? If you are not trolling, you're insane.
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.
So what you're saying is that she can't run the 800m because she's a biological male, but she CAN run the steeplechase because she is a biological male?
You don't make any effing sense.
what doesn't make any sense is men masquerading as women.
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.