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.
So who decides on which side of the sex divide some one might fall and against what criteria and would all agree on that criteria ?
The ECRC decision makes it clear at sports rules are not independent of society’s laws.The majority have no choice but to accept.
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.
Semenya DOES accept the fact that he is biologically male. Semenya lives his entire life as a male, except for when it comes to racing. Then Semenya tries to pretend that he doesn't live his life as a male.
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.
Semenya DOES accept the fact that he is biologically male. Semenya lives his entire life as a male, except for when it comes to racing. Then Semenya tries to pretend that he doesn't live his life as a male.
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?
During the hearings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Semenya case, WA argued that Semenya and other XY athletes with any of the small number of "46,XY DSDs" - differences/disorders of sex development in persons with XY sex chromosomes - who are subject to the DSD rules WA issued in 2018 are "biological males."
In the Semenya case and since then, WA has made it very clear that athletes competing in the women's category, or seeking to, must have ALL of the following physical features in order to be subject to WA's DSD regulations:
XY sex chromosomes;
testes, not ovaries;
male levels of testsoterone (due to their testes being in good working order insofar as testosterone production goes);
male androgen receptors with enough functionality that their bodies respond to and use the large amount of testosterone their testes pump out as male humans typically do.
Moreover, according to the CAS decision released in 2019, Semenya and Semenya's attorneys argued in court that WA's position that Semenya and others with the same sex of physical traits (male sex chromosomes, testes, male levels of T, and male-typical response to T) are "biological males" is "itself a form of sex discrimination [against them] based on a sex characteristic."
Much of the confusion comes from the widespread practice of referring to athletes like Semenya as women and "women with naturally high testosterone" out of respect for their legal identities and self-images and a desire not to hurt their feelings or cause them distress.
But what's really muddied the waters and sown even greater confusion is the practice of going even further and calling athletes like Semenya "female" and using such terms as "female athletes, "XY female," and "female DSD athletes" for them.
Over the years, IAAF/WA and CAS have both routinely engaged in inaccurate, intentionally obfuscating use of the word female in this way. Worse, they continued engaging in the linguistic fiction that Semenya et al are "female athletes" and "46,XY females" even as and after WA started saying they are "biological males" during the Semenya proceedings - and even after CAS issued its 2019 decision granting more legitimacy to WA's position than to Semenya's.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
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?
During the hearings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Semenya case, WA argued that Semenya and other XY athletes with any of the small number of "46,XY DSDs" - differences/disorders of sex development in persons with XY sex chromosomes - who are subject to the DSD rules WA issued in 2018 are "biological males."
In the Semenya case and since then, WA has made it very clear that athletes competing in the women's category, or seeking to, must have ALL of the following physical features in order to be subject to WA's DSD regulations:
XY sex chromosomes;
testes, not ovaries;
male levels of testsoterone (due to their testes being in good working order insofar as testosterone production goes);
enough working male androgen receptors to enable their bodies to respond to and use the large amount of testosterone that their testes pump out as males typically do.
Moreover, according to the CAS decision released in 2019, Semenya and Semenya's attorneys argued in court that WA's position that Semenya and others with the same sex of physical traits (male sex chromosomes, testes, male levels of T, and male-typical response to T) are "biological males" is "itself a form of sex discrimination [against them] based on a sex characteristic."
Much of the confusion comes from the widespread practice of referring to athletes like Semenya as women and "women with naturally high testosterone" out of respect for their legal identities and self-images and a desire not to hurt their feelings or cause them distress.
But what's really muddied the waters and sown even greater confusion is the practice of going even further and calling athletes like Semenya "female" and using such terms as "female athletes, "XY female," and "female DSD athletes" for them.
Over the years, IAAF/WA and CAS have both routinely engaged in inaccurate, intentionally obfuscating use of the word female in this way. Worse, they continued engaging in the linguistic fiction that Semenya et al are "female athletes" and "46,XY females" even as and after WA started saying they are "biological males" during the Semenya proceedings - and even after CAS issued its 2019 decision granting more legitimacy to WA's position than to Semenya's.
Thank you for the depth of your response.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
During the hearings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Semenya case, WA argued that Semenya and other XY athletes with any of the small number of "46,XY DSDs" - differences/disorders of sex development in persons with XY sex chromosomes - who are subject to the DSD rules WA issued in 2018 are "biological males."
In the Semenya case and since then, WA has made it very clear that athletes competing in the women's category, or seeking to, must have ALL of the following physical features in order to be subject to WA's DSD regulations:
XY sex chromosomes;
testes, not ovaries;
male levels of testsoterone (due to their testes being in good working order insofar as testosterone production goes);
enough working male androgen receptors to enable their bodies to respond to and use the large amount of testosterone that their testes pump out as males typically do.
Moreover, according to the CAS decision released in 2019, Semenya and Semenya's attorneys argued in court that WA's position that Semenya and others with the same sex of physical traits (male sex chromosomes, testes, male levels of T, and male-typical response to T) are "biological males" is "itself a form of sex discrimination [against them] based on a sex characteristic."
Much of the confusion comes from the widespread practice of referring to athletes like Semenya as women and "women with naturally high testosterone" out of respect for their legal identities and self-images and a desire not to hurt their feelings or cause them distress.
But what's really muddied the waters and sown even greater confusion is the practice of going even further and calling athletes like Semenya "female" and using such terms as "female athletes, "XY female," and "female DSD athletes" for them.
Over the years, IAAF/WA and CAS have both routinely engaged in inaccurate, intentionally obfuscating use of the word female in this way. Worse, they continued engaging in the linguistic fiction that Semenya et al are "female athletes" and "46,XY females" even as and after WA started saying they are "biological males" during the Semenya proceedings - and even after CAS issued its 2019 decision granting more legitimacy to WA's position than to Semenya's.
Thank you for the depth of your response.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
That poster is a certified transphobe. You are wasting time with it. Just you wait until it bares its vicious verbal gymnastics fangs sooner or later.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
That poster is a certified transphobe. You are wasting time with it. Just you wait until it bares its vicious verbal gymnastics fangs sooner or later.
Not ; quite happy for trans to be part of society but not such as CS in female sport but I am open to change my mind on the latter.
During the hearings before the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the Semenya case, WA argued that Semenya and other XY athletes with any of the small number of "46,XY DSDs" - differences/disorders of sex development in persons with XY sex chromosomes - who are subject to the DSD rules WA issued in 2018 are "biological males."
In the Semenya case and since then, WA has made it very clear that athletes competing in the women's category, or seeking to, must have ALL of the following physical features in order to be subject to WA's DSD regulations:
XY sex chromosomes;
testes, not ovaries;
male levels of testsoterone (due to their testes being in good working order insofar as testosterone production goes);
enough working male androgen receptors to enable their bodies to respond to and use the large amount of testosterone that their testes pump out as males typically do.
Moreover, according to the CAS decision released in 2019, Semenya and Semenya's attorneys argued in court that WA's position that Semenya and others with the same sex of physical traits (male sex chromosomes, testes, male levels of T, and male-typical response to T) are "biological males" is "itself a form of sex discrimination [against them] based on a sex characteristic."
Much of the confusion comes from the widespread practice of referring to athletes like Semenya as women and "women with naturally high testosterone" out of respect for their legal identities and self-images and a desire not to hurt their feelings or cause them distress.
But what's really muddied the waters and sown even greater confusion is the practice of going even further and calling athletes like Semenya "female" and using such terms as "female athletes, "XY female," and "female DSD athletes" for them.
Over the years, IAAF/WA and CAS have both routinely engaged in inaccurate, intentionally obfuscating use of the word female in this way. Worse, they continued engaging in the linguistic fiction that Semenya et al are "female athletes" and "46,XY females" even as and after WA started saying they are "biological males" during the Semenya proceedings - and even after CAS issued its 2019 decision granting more legitimacy to WA's position than to Semenya's.
Thank you for the depth of your response.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
The medical experts have already agreed on this. Semenya was diagnosed with a DSD that only applies to males.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
The medical experts have already agreed on this. Semenya was diagnosed with a DSD that only applies to males.
And do “they” say that does only apply to those they would define as males.Any medical reference.
I do see how the CS team has captured the ground of debate by claiming that she is female and thus cutting the the debate short.
I have to say I was waiting for TV commentary saying; at least once; that CS is biologically male.
Semenya DOES accept the fact that he is biologically male. Semenya lives his entire life as a male, except for when it comes to racing. Then Semenya tries to pretend that he doesn't live his life as a male.
Anything to back that up ?
A 2021 NY Times profile of Semenya suggests that Semenya was always regarded either as male or as of ambiguous sex growing up, but mainly treated like a male - albeit a male with a difference that set Semenya apart and made Semenya special.
The standard party-line narrative about "poor Caster" says that Semenya was was "raised female" and also has gone through life being bullied, ostracized and unfairly discriminated against for being different.
The NY Times piece repeats all the usual elements of the party line that's been pushed about Semenya for the last 10 years and more:
She identifies as female, was raised female, is legally female and has boldly proclaimed, “I am a woman, and I am fast.”
Books for children and young adults have portrayed Semenya as a race and gender activist, a hero, an athlete who overcame bullying to find her identity and confidence on the track.
But what Semenya actually told the times contradicts the standard story about being "raised female" and subjected to bullying for being different growing up:
Her parents, Semenya said, understood that her life would be uncommon and prepared her for it. They let her wear boys’ clothing, take on a household role traditionally reserved for sons and join a teenage boys’ soccer team.
She spoke affectionately of her younger days of playing on a dusty field in a rural village, and being celebrated, not isolated, for standing out, for being singular and distinctive.
“As a kid, you’re walking home to the sports ground, you’re playing with boys and your childhood becomes marvelous because everyone loves you because you’re different,” Semenya said with a grin.
The NY Times article also notes that whilst "homophobia that is rampant in South Africa," particularly against women who are same-sex attracted,Semenya and Semenya's wife, Violet Raseboya, have not been subjected to it.
On the contrary, from the start, Semenya's and Raseboya's romance, engagement, wedding and marriage have been totally celebrated and glorified in the extensive, always adulatory media coverage the couple have gotten in SA and internationally over the years. Semenya's and Raseboya's family life as parents of the two young daughters Raseboya has given birth to since 2019 has also been depicted in nothing but glowing tones in the African and global press and on social media.
This is in stark contrast to the horrible way that black lesbians - and black girls and women perceived as possibly lesbian or bi - are generally depicted and treated in South Africa, especially if they come off as at all butch or "masc." In South African black society, women and girls perceived as lesbians or possbily lesbian are routinely treated to scorn, public vilification, name-calling, harassment, rape and death threats, and physical abuse by men that has included many documented crimes of lesbophobic "corrective rape" and even murder motivated by the perpetrators' anti-lesbian animus.
But none of that mistreatment has ever come Semenya's way, or Raseboya's. Perhaps this is because neither Semenya nor Raseboya have ever publicly "identified" themselves as lesbians or as women in a same-sex relationship. Indeed, after Raseboya and Semenya started dating, Raseboya was reported in the press to have responded with angry denial and scoffing when asked if this meant she's now a lesbian.
But perhaps the real reason Semenya and Raseboya don't get any of the flak women routinely get in SA for being lesbians and for being in same-sex relationships is that despite all the lip service given to Semenya supposedly being SA's "golden girl" and a "strong black African woman," the general public in SA do not genuinely see Semenya as a woman. Rather they regard and treat Semenya more like Semenya is a man:
And [Semenya] is sometimes stopped for selfies while jogging around her neighborhood in Pretoria, a kind of deference that many Black women, particularly those who are openly lesbian, do not enjoy in a country where they are often harassed or threatened or worse.
This post was edited 12 minutes after it was posted.
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.
A person with 46XY DSD is recognized as a female in sports if she does not have functioning androgen receptor. All relevant sports organizations agree that Y chromosome itself does not give a person athletic advantage.
Sex is not "immutable" as you claim. Who qualifies as a "woman" depends on the circumstances.
My position is that I favour CS not being allowed to compete in the female category.
However I struggle with the detail of it all and thus the factors at play in 2023.
You state that WA argue they are male and I see the strength of their view. However which authorities would agree? I have in mind medicine and or medical ethics and I do refer to sex and not gender.
The medical experts have already agreed on this. Semenya was diagnosed with a DSD that only applies to males.
I have done some reading prompted/ directed by this thread.
The key point was the one that said the IAAF needed all the reference points to be male( thank you run ragged)
Also… some my wish to search via dsd nhs for an excellent explanation from Alderhay Hospital, Liverpool.
I am now satisfied that CS would be defined as biologically male from a medical perspective.
Where that takes us I am not too sure.Was it the nonsense that high T gave no athletic benefit.
Semenya DOES accept the fact that he is biologically male. Semenya lives his entire life as a male, except for when it comes to racing. Then Semenya tries to pretend that he doesn't live his life as a male.
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.
A person with 46XY DSD is recognized as a female in sports if she does not have functioning androgen receptor. All relevant sports organizations agree thatY chromosome itself does not give a person athletic advantage.
people with testes and normal male amounts of testosterone have an advantage over people with ovaries and low amounts of testosterone.
A person with 46XY DSD is recognized as a female in sports if she does not have functioning androgen receptor. All relevant sports organizations agree thatY chromosome itself does not give a person athletic advantage.
people with testes and normal male amounts of testosterone have an advantage over people with ovaries and low amounts of testosterone.
There. I fixed it for you.
Biology 101 lesson for today, tomorrow and the day after.
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.
A person with 46XY DSD is recognized as a female in sports if she does not have functioning androgen receptor. All relevant sports organizations agree that Y chromosome itself does not give a person athletic advantage.
Sex is not "immutable" as you claim. Who qualifies as a "woman" depends on the circumstances.
Immutable means "unchanging over time or unable to be changed." In humans, other mammals and nearly all other sexually-reproducing animal and plant species, the sex of individuals is indeed immutable.
What can and sometimes does change depending on the circumstances is an individual's sex classification for matters such as sports, legal identity documents, medical care, social customs, relgious roles, inheritance of titles and property, marriage.
Every human being's sex is the result of the chromosomes containing our native DNA and sex-specific genes that can be found in nearly every one of the several trillions of nucleated cells in our bodies. People can change sex classifcation - and people can change many aspects of our appearance, including some secondary sex characteristics. But none of us can change our sex chromosomes or DNA.
(I specified "native DNA" and said "nearly every one of the several trilions of nucleated cells in our bodies" there to take into account the maternal-fetal cell exchange that often occurs during pregnancy. As a result of this process, women who have been pregnant with male offspring often end up with a few of our sons' cells containing their male sex chromosomes and male DNA scattered around our bodies. Similarly, many males have some cells here and there in their bodies that have their mothers' DNA and sex chromosomes in their bodies. But the presence of scattered cells with non-native opposite sex chromosomes and DNA in some mothers and sons does not change anyone's sex.)
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.
A person with 46XY DSD is recognized as a female in sports if she does not have functioning androgen receptor. All relevant sports organizations agree that Y chromosome itself does not give a person athletic advantage.
Sex is not "immutable" as you claim. Who qualifies as a "woman" depends on the circumstances.
The sports bodies agree that being male is an advantage. A 'Y' chromosome indicates the individual is male - so they do not say what you claim. A person who is DSD-46XY is male and in the very rare case of the lack of a functioning androgen receptor that does not make them female, only that they do not have the advantages that come from being male, and would not therefore be subject to the testosterone-suppression requirement under the rules.
Sex is immutable in the sense it is genetically defined. Unlike sea-horses and some fish, we don't swap between 'male' and 'female' in our lives. We are one or the other. "Woman" only changes meaning when the word isn't used as a biological term. Thinking you are a woman doesn't make you one biologically.
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.