Time magazine publishes 3,000+ word Q&A with Caster Semenya that any honest journalist should be embarrased by

Just a small point. I was not referring to CS' feelings nor considering she might read this. Not my point here. I am specifically referring to the fact that on letsrun, on threads without registration and moderation, the level of vitriol and hatred directed at CS or at trans athletes is staggering, so the courtesy shown here is heartening. That it is offered is enough for me.

As to your comment about her identity, that is mainly a lot of supposition. I do not know what might please her nor affect her earnings. I also tend to think that armstringlivs did not have the hypothetical reader with gender dysphoria in mind when using the term, but could of course be wrong. She can weigh in (I believe that armstronglivs is a she, but also could be wrong).

Here's a link to the IAAF "hyperandrogenism rules" that were issued in April 2011 and codified where the IAAF stood on the Semenya situation back then. These rules went into force on May 1, 2011.

https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/response_attachments/2014/06/IAAF%20Regulations%20(Final)-AMG-30.04.2011.pdf

The 2011 IAAF rules said that athletes known to be XY with DSDs only found in males would be eligible to compete in the women's category if they had

androgen levels below the normal male range; or

androgen levels within the normal male range but an androgen resistance [condition]

Normal male range Total Testosterone Levels >10 nmol/L

Prior to issuing the 2011 rules, the IAAF made a deal with Semenya and Athletics South Africa allowing Semenya to compete in women's events if Semenya took medication with the aim of lowering Semenya's serum T to 10 nmol/L.

As you'll recall, the IAAF suspended Semenya from women's competition in 2009 after Semenya won the women's 800m at the IAAF World Championships for the first time and it was determined that Semenya is XY with an enzyme defiency (5-ARD2) that's a DSD only in males.

The IAAF gave Semenya clearance to resume competing in women's events in July 2010. So presumably the private agreement the IAAF struck with Semenya occurred in late 2009 or the first half of 2010.

In July of 2015, the IAAF's 2011 regulations were suspended following a legal challenge mounted by Indian DSD athlete Dutee Chand in 2014. One of the pillars of Chand's case was the erroneous contention that it's not unusual - or at least it's not unheard of - for healthy adult and adolescent female people to have natural T levels above 10 nmol/L.

After the Chand case, the IAAF went back to the drawing board and devised new regulations that were specifically focused on DSD athletes competing in the women's category who have male genetics, fully-developed and well-functioning testes that produce male levels of T, and male-typical androgen sensitivity.

In 2018, the IAAF issued new rules. Whereas the 2011 rules were called "hyperandrogenism regulations" and included athletes with female-only health conditions such as polycystic ovarian syndrome, the 2018 rules were titled "Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sexual Development)" - and they only pertained to athletes with testes, male levels of T and working male androgen receptors like Semenya.

The 2018 rules said that DSD athletes with testes and male androgen sensitvity competing in the women's category like Semenya would have to lower their serum T to 5 nmol/L to compete in women's events.

Semenya immediately challenged the 2018 rules in court. The 2018 rule setting the T limit for DSD athletes like Semenya at 5 nmol/L went into effect in late 2019 - after the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled against Semenya and the Swiss supreme court rejected Semenya's appeal.

However, a stipulation of the CAS ruling in the Semenya case was that the 5 nmol/L testosterone limit could only be imposed on male DSD athletes competing in middle-distance women's events, namely the 400 to the mile. This ushered in a period when XY DSD athletes got around the new rules by switching to women's events where they could still compete without lowering their T. Semenya and Niyonsaba switched from the women's 800 to longer distance women's races, with Niyonsaba doing extremely well in them. XY DSD runners who'd previously excelled in the women's 400 like Mboma and Masilingi switched to women's sprints.

In March 2023, WA tightened up the rules on male DSD athletes in the elite women's category even further. The new rules say athletes with the sorts of DSDs that individuals like Semenya, Niyonsaba, Chand, Seyni, Mboma and Masilingi all have must lower their T to below 2.5 nmol/L for 24 months in order to gain eligibility to compete in elite women's events that count in world rankings. Moreover, the new rules apply across the board to all women's elite track & field events - they no longer apply just to middle-distance running.

Your comment gives the impression that everyone who has contributed to this thread has referred to Semenya using "she" and "her." But that's not true.

On this and other threads, I always construct my posts about Semenya so as to avoid using third-person singular pronouns altogether.

BTW, I don't do this as a "rhetorical trick to diminish who Semenya is as a person." I do it simply to avoid lying. Out of respect for accuracy, clarity and truthfulness - and concern for fairness in sports for female athletes.

I also do it so I can rest assured that I'm not participating in, perpetuating or playing along with the con and intentional misinformation campaign that have been going on in Semenya's case for more than 15 years now.

Finally, I do it because I think people with DSDs have been done a huge disservice and experienced many injustices due to all the misinformation, obfuscation, mischaracterizations, fudging of facts, avoiding the truth and plain outright lying about their conditions and their sex that's occurred over the course of time.

The pattern of not being truthful about DSDs has led to countless cases - most of them in the 20th century, but some happening in some places even today - where medical doctors have employed lies, obfuscations, mumbo jumbo and half-truths to convince distraught parents and the general public that babies and minor-age children with DSDs like the one Semenya has should be subjected to health care abuses such as uneccessary surgical removal of testicles, amputations of malformed or minuscule penises, and creation of pseudo vulvas and vaginas so as to make their genitals more closely look like female ones.

Fair enough. You stand apart in that regard.

As to your final paragraph, I find nothing in the medical literature, in pubmed, to support your contention that there are either countless cases (hyperbole), or that physicians lie, obfuscate or other in order to abuse them. That is your own bias coming through. I understand that this issue is important to you. But I also find that when I look- and I honestly have no real skin in this game and my reason for posting here was more about the general discussion boards than this specific issue, that there is good information out there. Here is but one, which supports in part what you say, and in part what I say. There are 741 more papers under the search terms DSD Surgery.

J Pediatr Urol. 2016 Jun;12(3):139-49.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2016.04.001.
Epub 2016 Apr 9.

Surgery in disorders of sex development (DSD) with a gender issue: If (why), when, and how?
Pierre D E Mouriquand
1
, Daniela Brindusa Gorduza
2
, Claire-Lise Gay
2
, Heino F L Meyer-Bahlburg
3
, Linda Baker et al

Abstract
Ten years after the consensus meeting on disorders of sex
development (DSD), genital surgery continues to raise questions and
criticisms concerning its indications, its technical aspects, timing and
evaluation. This standpoint details each distinct situation and its
possible management in 5 main groups of DSD patients with atypical
genitalia: the 46,XX DSD group (congenital adrenal hyperplasia); the
heterogeneous 46,XY DSD group (gonadal dysgenesis, disorders of
steroidogenesis, target tissues impairments …); gonosomic mosaicisms
(45,X/46,XY patients); ovo-testicular DSD; and "non-hormonal/non
chromosomal" DSD. Questions are summarized for each DSD group with the
support of literature and the feed-back of several world experts. Given
the complexity and heterogeneity of presentation there is no consensus
regarding the indications, the timing, the procedure nor the evaluation
of outcome of DSD surgery. There are, however, some issues on which most
experts would agree: 1) The need for identifying centres of expertise
with a multidisciplinary approach; 2) A conservative management of the
gonads in complete androgen insensitivity syndrome at least until
puberty although some studies expressed concerns about the heightened
tumour risk in this group; 3) To avoid vaginal dilatation in children
after surgical reconstruction; 4) To keep asymptomatic mullerian
remnants during childhood; 5) To remove confirmed streak gonads when Y
material is present; 6) It is likely that 46,XY cloacal exstrophy,
aphallia and severe micropenis would do best raised as male although
this is based on limited outcome data. There is general acknowledgement
among experts that timing, the choice of the individual and
irreversibility of surgical procedures are sources of concerns. There
is, however, little evidence provided regarding the impact of
non-treated DSD during childhood for the individual development, the
parents, society and the risk of stigmatization. The low level of
evidence should lead to design collaborative prospective studies
involving all parties and using consensual protocols of evaluation.
Keywords:
17β hydroxy steroid dehydrogenase; 17βHSD; 5α reductase
deficiency; AIS; Androgen insensitivity syndrome; CAH; Chromosomal
anomalies; Congenital adrenal hyperplasia; DSD; Disorders of sex
development; Genital surgery in children; Gonadal dysgenesis; Gonadal
dysplasia; Hypospadias; Micropenis; Mixed gonadal dysgenesis;
Ovo-testicular DSD.

Is the search you did on PubMed today the first time you've looked into the history of surgical and medical abuse of babies, children and minor-age teens with DSDs? If that's the case, it's no wonder you're in the dark about the role played in these abuses by the lies, obfuscations, misleading mumbo jumbo and other forms of dishonesty propagated by members of the medical/health care professions - many of whom also instructed parents of kids with DSDs never to reveal the truth - and often to tell bald-faced lies - to their children as they grew up.

But just to be clear: I never said - and I didn't mean to suggest - that all the medical and health care practitioners who've concocted and peddled lies, obfuscation and misinformation about conditions that result in genital anomalies did so with the conscious intent of abusing children with DSDs. Some were quacks with god complexes like the infamous child abuser John Money. But others - probably most of them - were well-meaning but biased men who believed they knew best and convinced themselves that they were acting in the best interests of the babies and children they recommended for gential surgeries. Whatever their intent, though, these health care practioners ended up doing enormous harm to countless youngsters all the same.

The UN's special rapporteur on torture noted in a 2013 report on "abuses in health-care settings" that especiallly in countries with so-called "Western medicine" or "modern medicine"

Children who are born with atypical sex characteristics are often subject to irreversible sex assignment, involuntary sterilization, involuntary genital normalizing surgery, performed without their informed consent, or that of their parents, ‘in an attempt to fix their sex,’ leaving them with permanent, irreversible infertility and causing severe mental suffering.

This is not to say that all genital surgeries on children born with atypical genitals are abusive. Far from it. Some gential surgeries were and are necessary to correct genuine problems. Such as hypospadias that cause incontinence and high risk of UTIs in boys with conditions leading to differences of male sex development in baby boys, and enlarged clitorises that can cause pain and other problems in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia - a condition that occurs in both sexes but only affects the sex development of females. The genital surgeries on babies, children and teens too young to consent that were and are abusive are the done for cosmetic rather than medical reasons - to "normalize" the appearance of the genitals and especially to castrate and "feminize" the external genitals of children with DSDs that only occur in males.

This 2017 report issued by the Council of Europe - "The Rights of Children in Biomedicine: Challenges posed by scientific advances and uncertainties" - gives a good brief overview of the history of abusive cosmetic surgeries done on children with atypical genitals to make them appear more "normal" that started to become common in Western medical settings in the mid 20th century. The report goes into some of the disturbing reasoning underlying and justifying these practices as well. See pages 40-44.

https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016806d8e2f

Armstronglivs is definitely male, last time I checked - no gender dysphoria there. However, my referring to Semenya as "she" is simply an acknowledgement of her chosen identity as a woman. I'm not doing to dispute that. What I do dispute is her right to compete as a woman. She is biologically male.

RunRagged, it is not the first time I've looked a this, but it is the first time in some time that I have. I would say that it has been at least 3 years since I looked at the literature, and my reason back then was different than now.

I also acknowledge the difficulties here. There are several issues that emerge- who should compete in what group, who should undergo surgery, what the ramifications of the various forms of DSD are, etc. I work in healthcare, but this is not my area of expertise, which I freely admit.

But again, the reason I posted was not to engage in the science, it was to note that Rojo continually keeps this issue alive, usually without the moderation and warnings seen here, and that allows the continual trolling of the issue by people who have one hell of a lot of hate to share. That the purported issue was journalistic malpractice was just a pretext, in my opinion, for yet another thread on the subject. None of us here are actually discussing that issue, right?

Really, what is happening in a larger sense is two different arguments- one addresses the science and the factual differences between male and female and DSD, and looks to see the biological differences that exist. The second is the argument about social importance, the idea that we should respect trans and DSD athletes and allow them to compete where they feel they should. These two arguments may be incompatible. And in the end, at the elite level, much of the decision has already been made.

Since this is only one of mutiple times you've brought up male trans-identified athletes in a thread focused on Caster Semenya, you might be interested to know this: Semenya takes umbrage at being lumped in with and likened to males without DSDs who claim to have an opposite-sex gender identity and are using their gender-identity claims to demand entry into girls' and women's sports.

In Semenya's recently-published memoir, Semenya makes it patently clear that Semenya resents being conflated with - equated to, associated with, mentioned in the same breath as, or otherwise regarded as at all similar to - males born with normally-developed male genitals who claim to be women/girls and want to compete in the female category.

Semenya specifically writes that it's "nonsense" to draw a parallel between Semenya competing in women's sports to "allowing a man who believed he was a woman to compete with women."

Adding to the point I made in post #90:

Not only does Semenya take umbrage at being lumped in with normally-developed males who are trying to get into female sports based on their claims of having opposite-sex gender identities, Semenya doesn't seem particularly respectful of the gender identities of so-called transwomen and the terminology they use to describe themselves.

Semenya makes this clear in the section of Sememya's memoir describing the court proceedings in Semenya's case against the IAAF that took place in 2018.

For those who don't recall the details: Semenya took the IAAF to court to challenge the fairness and legality of the regulations pertaining to male DSD athletes like Semenya that the IAAF issued in 2018 in response to issues raised in the Dutee Chand case. The 2018 regulations required DSD athletes like Semenya to lower their T to 5 nmol/L in order to compete in women's events. Because of the Chand case, the IAAF's previous regulations requiring athletes like Semenya to lower their T to 10 nmol/L had been suspended in 2015. This enabled Semenya and other male DSD athletes to compete in women's events without lowering their T levels at all, with the result that all three medalists in the women's 800m at the 2016 Rio Olympics were males with DSDs (Semenya, Niyonsaba and Wambui).

In Chapter 22, Semenya writes:

The IAAF had changed tactics from the Chand case. They told the court in the Chand case they had discussed “females with high testosterone” but these new enhanced regulations would apply only to “46XY DSD athletes” who they considered “biological males with a female gender identity.”

I have to say hearing this troubled me. The IAAF argued that allowing me to compete in my natural body was the same as allowing a man who believed he was a woman to compete with women. That was nonsense.

Here's some of what Semenya says in the book about Joanna Harper, a trans-identified male who testified for the IAAF in court, with minor edits made because LRC rules don't allow me to quote the profanities that Semenya uses:

I remember I was sitting [in the courtroom] between Greg and Jim [Semenya’s lawyers] when a pale, fragile looking, very tall woman walked to the expert’s chair. She didn’t look healthy to me. I used my elbows to nudge my lawyers on either side of me.

She said her name was Joanna Harper. She introduced herself as a transgendered woman, a long-distance runner and a medical something who for some reason came to testify about her transition and how she’d done a study using several [seven] other transgendered runners.

“What. The. Fxck. Is. This?” I thought.

Joanna had been born and lived and ran as a man for forty-something years before she transitioned.

[But] I noticed she referred to herself as “a woman with high testosterone” and not a “biological male with a female gender identity.”

I remember I turned to look at [my lawyer] while Joanna was testifying. This was some shxt, right here.

Harper admitted on cross examination that she was not a medical doctor and had no experience in any scientific field relevant to my case. None of the transgender athletes whose she’d been measuring were elite or even professional athletes - they were all middle-aged amateur long-distance runners. All had been born and lived and competed as men for the majority of their lives. Again, their business. It has got nothing to do with me.

This is so, but I am actually discussing two issues here- Semenya and her specific situation, and the larger issue of trans athletes. Sorry if that is not clear. I am aware of CS's thoughts.

To my point, which is related to the discussion boards on LR, there is new thread about a trans runner finishing 4th in a meet, and it is there that the unfettered comments are present. It is this element of LR that led me to stop engagement here for many years. I'm old now and I am not the target audience for this site by a long shot. I understand that websites want to you stay and that upsetting or angering you is a good way to do that, and given the growth of ads on this site, I assume that the lack of moderation, the amount of antisemitic, bigoted and anti-trans commentary drives more traffic here, thus monetizing it. I'll sign off soon enough, and go back to not visiting.

I mean armostronglivs himself commented on a thread about small women- I wanted to see what the what was there since one of my daughters-in-law is 4'10" and it was about as bad as you might think.

But I am digressing. This thread has gone well even if Robert bailed on it, but I think we've said what we can.

the richest part of this is that ROJO is questioning someone (anyone's) credentials for journalism.

the brojos credentials:

1. trust funds

2. tenuous grasp on the English language in spite of every advantage possible

3. owning a geocities-circa-1997-esque internet messageboard

4. (probably) drunk rambling at all hours on said messageboard

5. watches lots of fox news

I freely admit to making a poor taste joke in the thread you refer to - I mentioned Jerry Lee Lewis - but jokes in poor taste are what this site is about and what first drew me to the place. It is irreverent. And a thread about people's height - or lack of it - has to be one of the least serious of subjects in a world that has much more that can and should be taken seriously. Perhaps this thread is one of them and I tend not to offer my bad taste jokes here. But I make no promises.