The eyeball test (adam's apple, zero breasts or hips, height, musclature, hairline) plus listening to Griner's voice makes me think that if I were offered a million dollars to correctly pick female or male with a dsd....I'm going with male dsd every single time, sorry.
If the judgement is appealed am I right that it would be based on whether or not the Swiss Court allowed a proper hearing of the case and thus discrimination and NOT on what the sport is really interested in ie intersex competing against females.
If the judgement is appealed am I right that it would be based on whether or not the Swiss Court allowed a proper hearing of the case and thus discrimination and NOT on what the sport is really interested in ie intersex competing against females.
The two are tightly related, the ECHR ruling based on the Swiss government’s failure to protect against discrimination that in turn is based on CAS’ admission that their decision was discriminatory but necessary and blah, but yes, WA and CAS weren’t parties involved in this hearing.
If the judgement is appealed am I right that it would be based on whether or not the Swiss Court allowed a proper hearing of the case and thus discrimination and NOT on what the sport is really interested in ie intersex competing against females.
I have no idea.
I haven't read the ECHR decision in Semenya v. Switzerland yet because the ECHR decided to publish the decision only in French - and there's no English translation yet. There's also no mention on the COE website about whether an English translation might be forthcoming. (French and English are the two official languages the ECHR issues its rulings in.)
Since your user name suggests you have Read the actual judgment, it sounds like you're in a better position to tell me than the other way around.
If the judgement is appealed am I right that it would be based on whether or not the Swiss Court allowed a proper hearing of the case and thus discrimination and NOT on what the sport is really interested in ie intersex competing against females.
I have no idea.
I haven't read the ECHR decision in Semenya v. Switzerland yet because the ECHR decided to publish the decision only in French - and there's no English translation yet. There's also no mention on the COE website about whether an English translation might be forthcoming. (French and English are the two official languages the ECHR issues its rulings in.)
Since your user name suggests you have Read the actual judgment, it sounds like you're in a better position to tell me than the other way around.
Massive jurisdiction over human rights matters;read the press release.
I did. Where does it say that the government of a sovreign nation is beholden to an international group that has no authority or enforcement mechanism?
Switzerland ratified the European Convention on Human Rights nearly four decades ago and made itself subject to the authority of the Court. That's why it's beholden.
If the judgement is appealed am I right that it would be based on whether or not the Swiss Court allowed a proper hearing of the case and thus discrimination and NOT on what the sport is really interested in ie intersex competing against females.
This whole legal case is really ridiculous. The entire point of female sports is that it is discriminatory. It discriminates against males. And historically, no one has had a problem with this. If you end discrimination, and let anyone into women's sports who wants to be in there, then biological females have no shot.
So of course the courts should continue to allow female sports to discriminate against male participation.
WA is not bound by the Court. It has also indicated it's going to stand by its position, so neither Semenya nor any other intersex athlete is going to be running the proscribed distances any time soon.
The issue which WA and other governance authorities need to hold to for the sake of women's sports is that competitors cannot be allowed to compete in the female category on the basis of what they think they are but what they are as immutable fact. If they are male they have no place in women's sport. Any other argument is politics. They should have their own category.
This post was edited 39 seconds after it was posted.
WA is not bound by the Court. It has also indicated it's going to stand by its position, so neither Semenya nor any other intersex athlete is going to be running the proscribed distances any time soon.
The issue which WA and other governance authorities need to hold to for the sake of women's sports is that competitors cannot be allowed to compete in the female category on the basis of what they think they are but what they are as immutable fact. If they are male they have no place in women's sport. Any other argument is politics. They should have their own category.
Let’s imagine CS wins at the next stage then NGB ‘s that are closely related to the State ( by funding or public policy) will be subject to the full force of EcHR decisions. Thus WA will be forced to comply as there can’t be two sets of rules.
You have not grasped that the CS matter relates to “ intersex “ and not trans sex.Thus the question of what is a female or born female etc becomes the key question as it is not possible to determine this as an immutable fact that you may wish.
WA is not bound by the Court. It has also indicated it's going to stand by its position, so neither Semenya nor any other intersex athlete is going to be running the proscribed distances any time soon.
The issue which WA and other governance authorities need to hold to for the sake of women's sports is that competitors cannot be allowed to compete in the female category on the basis of what they think they are but what they are as immutable fact. If they are male they have no place in women's sport. Any other argument is politics. They should have their own category.
Let’s imagine CS wins at the next stage then NGB ‘s that are closely related to the State ( by funding or public policy) will be subject to the full force of EcHR decisions. Thus WA will be forced to comply as there can’t be two sets of rules.
You have not grasped that the CS matter relates to “ intersex “ and not trans sex.Thus the question of what is a female or born female etc becomes the key question as it is not possible to determine this as an immutable fact that you may wish.
Intersex XY, as Semenya is, is male. In that sense, Semenya is the same as trans sex. They are both male. It is a defining criterion of women's sports that only females can compete.
That you "imagine" that Semenya wins the next stage, whatever that is, is only conjecture on your part and does not change the fact that the Court of Human Rights decision only applies to the Swiss Appeal Court and no other body. It also only applies in respect of the point that intersex athletes have to undergo hormone treatment under the rules if they wish to compete as women. (On that, the Court of Human Rights is wrong when it says athletes are compelled to undergo hormone treatment; it is their choice, should they wish to compete as women. They are of course not women - they are male - which is the core of this issue and what the Court has not faced.)
WA says it is standing by its rules and indicating it may ask the Court of Arbitration to back it up to protect the rights of women in sport. There is quite a lot to be played out in the legal arena before anyone sees Semenya competing again in the 800m.
The crux of the issue is whether gender as is self-defined (like Semenya and trans athletes maintain) decides the right to participation in women's sport or immutable biological determinations of sex. WA and other sporting bodies are trying to accommodate both camps, by allowing male participation with conditions. It won't work. For women's sport to retain its integrity there will need to be a separate category for intersex and trans athletes.
Let’s imagine CS wins at the next stage then NGB ‘s that are closely related to the State ( by funding or public policy) will be subject to the full force of EcHR decisions. Thus WA will be forced to comply as there can’t be two sets of rules.
You have not grasped that the CS matter relates to “ intersex “ and not trans sex.Thus the question of what is a female or born female etc becomes the key question as it is not possible to determine this as an immutable fact that you may wish.
Intersex XY, as Semenya is, is male. In that sense, Semenya is the same as trans sex. They are both male. It is a defining criterion of women's sports that only females can compete.
That you "imagine" that Semenya wins the next stage, whatever that is, is only conjecture on your part and does not change the fact that the Court of Human Rights decision only applies to the Swiss Appeal Court and no other body. It also only applies in respect of the point that intersex athletes have to undergo hormone treatment under the rules if they wish to compete as women. (On that, the Court of Human Rights is wrong when it says athletes are compelled to undergo hormone treatment; it is their choice, should they wish to compete as women. They are of course not women - they are male - which is the core of this issue and what the Court has not faced.)
WA says it is standing by its rules and indicating it may ask the Court of Arbitration to back it up to protect the rights of women in sport. There is quite a lot to be played out in the legal arena before anyone sees Semenya competing again in the 800m.
The crux of the issue is whether gender as is self-defined (like Semenya and trans athletes maintain) decides the right to participation in women's sport or immutable biological determinations of sex. WA and other sporting bodies are trying to accommodate both camps, by allowing male participation with conditions. It won't work. For women's sport to retain its integrity there will need to be a separate category for intersex and trans athletes.
You are of the opinion that intersex are male; what sort of grading would you apply along this continuum to decide male or female?It would seem that CM was not self defined but defined by all as female and indeed female by WA.
Yes; this decision only applies to the Swiss Court but if it is re heard and goes against CAS then it will apply to WA etc.
I would wish to protect women’s sport in the general way but the question is ….what happens when/if the law says that sport is not an exempted special case?
You are of the opinion that intersex are male; what sort of grading would you apply along this continuum to decide male or female?It would seem that CM was not self defined but defined by all as female and indeed female by WA.
On the contrary, I believe it was the testing by WA that confirmed Semenya's status as XY 5ARD, hence biologically male. At what stage they actually knew this is certainly up for debate as they cleared Semenya to race initially; there may have been significant political and media pressure to sweep the situation under the carpet before the situation became untenable. The term 'intersex' muddies the waters here because it implies that Semenya has some uniquely female physiology present, this isn't the case. At the end of the day, the protected category in sport is 'female' and, uncomfortable as it is, those with XY 5ARD have none of the uniquely female physiology that necessitates the protected category in the first place.
Good for Semenya. Society does owe her a better explanation for why it is fair that one who is born into a largely binary society and grows up with everyone around reasonably assuming and she herself identifying as a woman should now be forced to undergo hormone therapy that will surely render her uncompetitive as opposed to just being allowed to participate as a naturally lucky woman.
WA does not believe nor can it openly say “it’s because you are a man”, so I hope the idiots around here don’t chime the usual.
Society would have done Semenya a huge favour by encouraging Semenya to accept the fact that Semenya is biologically male and dealing with the physical issues that Semenya has. Rather than a national sports governing body and various cheerleaders exploiting Semenya to win medals and now involve themselves in endless court cases.
Good for Semenya. Society does owe her a better explanation for why it is fair that one who is born into a largely binary society and grows up with everyone around reasonably assuming and she herself identifying as a woman should now be forced to undergo hormone therapy that will surely render her uncompetitive as opposed to just being allowed to participate as a naturally lucky woman.
WA does not believe nor can it openly say “it’s because you are a man”, so I hope the idiots around here don’t chime the usual.
Society would have done Semenya a huge favour by encouraging Semenya to accept the fact that Semenya is biologically male and dealing with the physical issues that Semenya has. Rather than a national sports governing body and various cheerleaders exploiting Semenya to win medals and now involve themselves in endless court cases.
Nah, she doesn’t care for your presumed favor. She’s happy making money, as are her fans and country cheering for her and having her back.
Intersex XY, as Semenya is, is male. In that sense, Semenya is the same as trans sex. They are both male. It is a defining criterion of women's sports that only females can compete.
That you "imagine" that Semenya wins the next stage, whatever that is, is only conjecture on your part and does not change the fact that the Court of Human Rights decision only applies to the Swiss Appeal Court and no other body. It also only applies in respect of the point that intersex athletes have to undergo hormone treatment under the rules if they wish to compete as women. (On that, the Court of Human Rights is wrong when it says athletes are compelled to undergo hormone treatment; it is their choice, should they wish to compete as women. They are of course not women - they are male - which is the core of this issue and what the Court has not faced.)
WA says it is standing by its rules and indicating it may ask the Court of Arbitration to back it up to protect the rights of women in sport. There is quite a lot to be played out in the legal arena before anyone sees Semenya competing again in the 800m.
The crux of the issue is whether gender as is self-defined (like Semenya and trans athletes maintain) decides the right to participation in women's sport or immutable biological determinations of sex. WA and other sporting bodies are trying to accommodate both camps, by allowing male participation with conditions. It won't work. For women's sport to retain its integrity there will need to be a separate category for intersex and trans athletes.
You are of the opinion that intersex are male; what sort of grading would you apply along this continuum to decide male or female?It would seem that CM was not self defined but defined by all as female and indeed female by WA.
Yes; this decision only applies to the Swiss Court but if it is re heard and goes against CAS then it will apply to WA etc.
I would wish to protect women’s sport in the general way but the question is ….what happens when/if the law says that sport is not an exempted special case?
Sex is not a continuum; unlike gender it is either male or female (with the very rarest of biological instances), even though there are sometimes variations within the framework of sex. Semenya and DSD-XY athletes - who as the term indicates, have "differences of sexual development" - are reductively male, just as there will be DSD/female athletes; but they will fall on one side or the other of the sexual divide.
The legal question you pose has two parts to it: what if the "law" - which in this instance is currently the Court of Human Rights - decides against the WA rules, and, secondly, how far does the jurisdiction of that Court (or any other) extend? The response to the first part is that we haven't arrived at a point where a Court says the rules as such must change - and there is nothing inevitable that that will happen - and for a Court's decision to have any binding effect it has to have authority/jurisdiction over WA and sports governance bodies - which in part answers the second question. As each nation is sovereign, any decision a Court arrives at in one country will not bind the laws of another. So a decision, were it to apply, wouldn't be necessarily be universal.
The question is ultimately a political one; if sports hold adamantly to one view while a court holds to another the issue would be possibly decided through legislation, which is of course only binding in the jurisdictions or countries to which it applies. In essence, if public support goes with the sports bodies that is the way the law will go - and the converse applies.
As I have said, the crux of the issue is whether sports can continue to apply their own rules, based on biological criteria, or they become legislatively bound by the view that self-defined gender is what decides who can compete as a woman. Despite the passionate argument in favour of the latter from the left I doubt the majority will accept that.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
The EHRA applies to all public bodies throughout Europe and not just the Swiss Court. Please confirm ,Armstronglivs, that you have grasped this.
I didn't say EHRA only applies to Swiss Courts; it is that in this case the decision is in respect of a case heard by the Swiss Appeal Court. It is that Court that has been told it was "wrong". WA has indicated it is going to stand by its rules - which it couldn't do if the Human Rights Court decision was directly binding over it. Lord Coe has indicated the issue will likely go back to CAS for further "clarification".
The EHRA applies to all public bodies throughout Europe and not just the Swiss Court. Please confirm ,Armstronglivs, that you have grasped this.
I didn't say EHRA only applies to Swiss Courts; it is that in this case the decision is in respect of a case heard by the Swiss Appeal Court. It is that Court that has been told it was "wrong". WA has indicated it is going to stand by its rules - which it couldn't do if the Human Rights Court decision was directly binding over it. Lord Coe has indicated the issue will likely go back to CAS for further "clarification".
At present the EHRC judgement does not over WA. The point is that if it in the future decisions go in CS’s favour then it will.
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.