Lisa - Barnard College wrote:
I was under the assumption that Semenya is clearly a woman chromosonally (XX) that had birth defects. By the strictest binary definition, she is a woman.
To me, banning Semenya is little different than advocating that gold medals go to those who improve most from their untrained to maximally trained state.
i think this is the crux of it. there needs to be an objective standard. that standard could be chromosomes, as lisa is advocating. it could be the presence of testicles, as others are advocating. it could also be an amount of testosterone (or a ratio to other hormones).
this is a problem inherent in having a separate classification for females. the very best females in the world, at a power sport like athletics, will almost always tend towards male physical characteristics. more muscle, narrower hips, more testosterone, etc. on one side of the line are the people who we think have great natural gifts, on the other side are the people who we think are "too male".
i'm skeptical of anyone who thinks this line drawing is easy to do, or who thinks there is a natural, required location for the line.
at the same time, i'm very disappointed in the IAAF. even if they feel the need to minimally protect semenya's privacy at this point in the process, they should still publicly announce the location of the line, so there is no doubt in the future.
i imagine that most would agree that a subjective, case by case approach, is unworkable in athletics (even if it is the preferred approach for sociologists and medical professionals).