She runs 1:59.90

Articles such as the below link were put out last year.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/09/10/2009-09-10_caster_semenya_.html

Others have also reported that she has no womb, no ovaries, triple the testosterone of a normal woman plus internal testes.

This would explain her being able to pass as a woman but having the physical abilities of a man.

But the IAAF gender test has been kept confidential and has not been released publicly. They merely announced that she can compete as woman. And OJ was found not guilty by a court of law.

So I do not know if the information was leaked or if it is just false reporting.

This definitely doesn't pass the smell test. Things get dropped really easily and quickly when people are open regarding the results, and when things happen quietly and over extended periods of time, it always appears something untoward is happening... because Why didn't she show a completely non-invasive scan the day after rumors started when she was still a junior? I think you've either not thought this through very well or you are being deliberately obtuse.

ok, ok, ok wrote:

Coach Dunbar - I think you are mistaken.

Most indications are that she has testes, and they are not descended.

I have personally inspected his testes, and have found them to be clean!

"The IAAF would not comment on the results that have yet to be released.

According to a source with knowledge of the IAAF tests, Semenya has internal testes - the male sexual organs that produce testosterone."

THAT is our undeniable proof that she's a man? Or that she has both sets of organs? A report done by the NY Daily Times with no citation and no clarification from the IAAF?! That article reads like a cheap tabloid who is "protecting" a source "close to (insert said famous individual they are trying to deface)." Garbage.

While I do agree it's troubling and misleading that the IAAF took so long to make a decision and won't release test results, how is it fair to use that as evidence against this poor girl? I don't know if bigotry is an accurate depiction of what is going on here, but I would certainly say ignorance is involved, as well as quite a bit of narrow-mindedness. If not, why does everyone jump on the bandwagon against her when we have been told she is cleared to compete as a woman?

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. Otherwise, IAAF would have declared her a man, or found a way (payoff?) to encourage her into retirement. What about this case is any different than other people forced into retirement? My answer: She is unequivocally a woman.

The problem is that her birth defects make her one of the strongest female 800m runners in the world. Then the question just becomes, 'is it unfair to let her run?' My personal opinion is that she should be allowed to run.

There is no problem with male athletes with beneficial birth defects playing pro sports (Tom Dempsey, Gheorghe Mureşan, etc.) Is it unfair that I can never be as fast as Bolt or Bekele? No. 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.

And again assuming that my (XX) assumption in the first paragraph is true, but that hard standard is instead left to an opinionated decision by committee, will that become a strategy in the future to target masculine looking female competition, to make them waste time and money defending a spurious lawsuit when they could be training? Mutola, unable to compete. Lolo Jones accuses Priscilla Lopes-Schliep, Shannon Rowbury accuses Erin Donohue, Allyson Felix accuses the entire 100 field, Ethiopians and Kenyans accuse all Chinese distance runners in an Olympic year? Is that the sport you really want?

Yes.

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).

A quick google search of intersex conditions shows how many different things could be going on with Castor. She could just be a manly women. She could also be a man (XY) on a chromosomal level, and still be (mostly) a woman.

amnesia wrote:

No, honestly...everyone on this thread is just speaking from conjecture, right? There has no been no proof about her organs, internal or external, or about her being man, woman, or mix, has there?

WTF is going on!??

Yes, it is all just conjecture. Nobody knows anything except some unattributed leaks to the media.

Fault lies w/ IAAF for not having a standard. Regardless of what tests on Caster Semenya showed, I am not sure a ban would have held up to a lawsuit or appeal to CAS, as there is not a recognized standard of any kind in the IAAF rules and manuals. I hope they fix that.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Fault lies w/ IAAF for not having a standard.

The fault lies with anyone who thinks a man running in women's events is okay, including women who thinks he's a nice guy and therefore it's okay.

No it is not okay.

A lot of people put in a lot of work to get women's events in national and international competitions. It is sad when one or a few of them don't appreciate the efforts and results.

J.R. wrote:

The fault lies with anyone who thinks a man running in women's events is okay, including women who thinks he's a nice guy and therefore it's okay.

really? you've read through the thread and this is your contribution?

i haven't seen anyone write "a man running in women's events is ok". have you?

everyone seems to agree that having a separate women's classification is a good thing. everyone agrees that some human beings (roughly half) do not qualify as women for this purpose.

please tell us how it is that we can define "woman" or "man" for purposes of athletic competition.

for extra credit, should it depend on the sport?

Dude, forget the f*cking standard for two seconds...scientifically speaking. There is no uncertainty of a standard because we know nothing more about Caster than we do about Jenny f*cking Barringer! This thread continues to march on into stupidity armed only by the fact that this chick is not very attractive. Sure, the valid points of "some women are more manly than others" have been sent in defense, and they are useful, but I still don't see how we are arguing over test results that we have never seen nor heard.

Honestly, the fault I see in this entire discussion lies in the collective belief (or lack there of) that we KNOW anything more than "Caster looks manly." The first three pages were responses written as if every poster knew things that they did not. I know, I know...this is Letsrun...

The leaked reports said that Semenya has internal testes but no uterus or ovaries. IF this is true then it could be a case of androgen insensitivity syndrome. Someone with this condition would have a Y chromosome, but also a defect in the X chromosome that prevents normal male development. Genotypically male but hormonally and developmentally somewhere between female and male. Certainly not just a "manly" female. In fact, XX females with the same X defect show no effects, since it is recessive. Yeah these are not officially released reports, and we don't really know Semenya's test results, but it certainly raises an interesting issue. Should people with this condition be allowed to compete as males or females? Under what conditions? How will the policy be enforced? Is there currently a policy?

cleanse your spirit wrote:

Honestly, the fault I see in this entire discussion lies in the collective belief (or lack there of) that we KNOW anything more than "Caster looks manly." The first three pages were responses written as if every poster knew things that they did not. I know, I know...this is Letsrun...

well what would you have us discuss? this is clearly an interesting issue, and one that is newsworthy among track and field fans as well as with the general public (there was a front page nytimes.com article on semenya's return in berlin, but nothing on the men's 800 WR).

it seems to me that discussing a standard that would apply to semenya and also to everyone else is a legitimate discussion that is not dependent on the precise facts of semenya's case. at the same time, semenya's age, performances, appearance and investigation by the IAAF clearly indicate that gender identification for athletic purposes is relevant for her. it's not as if we're just being mean spirited by discussing this issue in relation to her. (though i would argue that the people who insist on calling her a man and using male pronouns are being unnecessarily mean spirited - whatever it is that we don't know, we do have every reason to believe that she has lived her life as a woman).

kaitainen wrote:

please tell us how it is that we can define "woman" or "man" for purposes of athletic competition

women = women

open division = everyone else

'everyone seems to agree that having a separate women's classification is a good thing.'

I agree, but I wonder if there would be seperate races if women did happen to be faster than men?

Its obvious that this was not a clear cut case by the length of time and non disclosure and hense the fear of massive legal costs

Myself I'm not that bothered as its a one off case (or very rare) and because doping is the main problem in sport

J.R. wrote:

women = women

there are not many shades of gray in your black and white world, are there?

Semenya came from nowhere to run 1:55 at 18 or something like that in one season, with an East German coach trained to identify such cases, and there was every indication that the world record would drop easily. The leaks said this was a case of undescended testes, superhigh testosterone, and no ovaries. The IAAF banned Semenya from competition. Semenya looks like a man. Semenya just broke 2 on cue, on little training, destroying the world class field. The IAAF used to have sex tests and still has a testosterone test for women. What in this story does not suggest that this is a case of a person with no right to compete with women?

I have not heard about the status of her chromosomes. I believe that information has not been released. I wonder why not? If CS is XY, that should be the end of the story.