RE Semenya: Is LetsRun.com "continuing a dated, bigoted conversation about gender in sports."

I feel bad for him/her and also all the other ladies that don't have a prayer to win the 800 because they are running against a half man half women in Caster in the Olympics. I know he /she was born that way and i feel for him or her but he/she shouldn't be allowed to run against ladies that are 100 percent women that is all.

XX only wrote:

Where I disagree is that women ONLY should compete in women's sports. That's women with ONLY xx chromosomes not xxy nor any other aberration. If an xx woman naturally has higher testosterone, then she is gifted with rarity just as Bolt is gifted in a way many men aren't. But I wholeheartedly disagree that any person other than one with ONLY xx chromosomes should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

A great example of this is Priscilla Lopes-Schliep.

Rojo, just like Tucker, thinks it's fine that athletes take testosterone reducing medicaments to be allowed to compete in an easier category. This is the same as taking weight reducing medicaments in order to compete in a lower weight class.

It's called doping.

And it's unlikely to be very healthy for the athlete. Who'll get sued first? The IAAF?

The only logical and sustainable way to have a female category in sports is to define it on the chromosome level. No one with a Y-chromosome (or SRY-gene) should be allowed to compete in the female category at elite/professional level.

It's not a difficult question. And it's not bigotry to defend a working solution. Anyway, one of the presidential candidates is considered a bigot by millions of Americans. He still maintains around 50% of the electorate support. The times are a'changing. Don't be afraid to be a "bigot". Stand tall.

Rojo, you are a true hero for defending our sport against social justice warriors and for allowing free speech.

I am curious to read her piece, to know who this "journalist" is.

Ruth Padawer sounds about right after looking at her articles. I see no evidence online that she ran track or cross country in college but that would be hard to dig up at her age.

Rojo - If I were you I'd write a simple, reasoned and clear editorial that states your position as you have on the message boards. I'd back it up with statements you've noted by Ross Tucker and pro athletes like Shannon Rowbury.

Before the writer publishes the hit piece I'd send their emails to their editor and ask to write an accompanying editorial. Calling someone a bigot when asking for a statement isn't good practice for a "journalist." I would include that snippet from them in the beginning of your editorial.

Rojo,

the best way to respond to upset ideologues like this "journalist" attacking you is to ask her a simple question:

"WHY DO WE HAVE WOMEN'S SPORT?"

Fundamentally, essentially, why do we have a segregated, protected women's division? In no other field of endeavor do we have sex or gender categories--actually, scratch that--we have male/female categories for the Academy awards; I'm sure there are others.

In any case, hopefully you can get her to answer the question in the only rational way possible--that at the elite level, women are unable to compete with men. Therefore, XX women must be protected from other "blends" or the very concept of a women's division is absurd and we should just have one unisex division where no XX women (and no Casters, for that matter) will approach the top 1000 in the world.

Tell her we have only two rational choices:

1. A world of XX women in one division, and "everybody else" in the men's or "open" division.

OR

2. One unisex division.

Blah Blah. wrote:

This is tiring.

Rojo is not planning on taking any action against any transgender person. He will not be banning anyone from competing in any competition. He is only expressing an opinion.

Liberals do not believe in freedom of speech. Everyone who does not agree with their agenda is evil and needs to be silenced, imprisoned if necessary.

The hatred and anti-speech is only coming from one side of this issue. Before persons with an XY chromosome were allowed to compete in women's events there was no hatred towards those who thought they should.

Liberals do not give a damn about transgenders. Their agenda is to spread hatred and to vilify those who are not one of them. Their agenda is to rule over others.

0/10, stay on topic and try to keep up next time!

I normally disagree with you, but on this you are spot on IMO. One thing I would watch out for is saying bombastic things like "Then I'm proud to be considered a bigot" to a "reporter", because in a muckraking piece that will just be shortened to "I'm proud to be considered a bigot".

Wow, that was well said!

Yeah, chilhowee has given us two excellent posts. Props from me too.

Sick and tired of all you libs labelling rojo stupid, dimwitted, racist, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, lazy, mini-brained, a mental midget, xenophobic, chauvinistic, prejudiced, indolent, shiftless, work-shy, unemployed bum, unemployable, slow.

Rojo,

I disagree with you in all things political. Your traditional GOP views absolutely disgust me, and your light hand on moderating blatant racism towards minorities in this messageboard was at times disturbing (even if I'm willing to admit that it has improved in the last year).

Having said all that, I agree 100% with you on this issue. The future of women's sports is at stake here, pure and simple. Participation in sports is not a right, and like you pointed out, athletes give away many human rights for access to sports. As such, limiting participation based on (physiological/biological) gender is not discriminatory.

In order to make it fair, we'll probably advance towards two categories: women's and open. This way, the participation rights of women athletes are guaranteed. Otherwise, as acceptance of transgender/intersex increases, the danger will exist of intersex/transgender athletes completely overrun women's sports.

The Angel of Death wrote:

It's not the discussion per se, but how this website is presenting the issue, which generally has had no nuance or insightful analysis. Just "ew, she's a freak (*GROSS*)." There is definitely a conversation to be had with such a tough issue as where and how inter-sex athletes should compete, but you guys are treating this like middle schoolers would - immature, shallow, moronic, disrespectful, and unprofessional. The criticism, frankly, is just and deserved.

The mind bogglingly stupid "Ashton Eaton should compete as a female at the Olympics" thread (or whatever the hell that trash was) YOU created is a good reference point to start.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7336956&page=2

Your post is wrong.

1) Back in 2009, when we were the only ones in the world interviewing Semenya, we interviewed her with respect and as a competitor. Other journalists were laughing at her and calling her a man and not even interviewing here. Our interview went viral and has nearly a million views:

2)The Ashton Eaton thread was a valid one. In case you forgot, the 1976 Olympic decathlon champ for men is now a woman. At a minimum, I want these people to at least admit someone like Bruce Jenner should have to undergo hormone treatment before competing as a woman.

I wonder what this journalist thinks about Shannon Rowbury?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMQJeL302Qs

Is Rowbury perpetuating a dated, bigoted conversation? Will people die because Rowbury thinks that Caster Semenya presents a problem to women's sports? Or is Rowbury a smart person who understands the implications of not drawing a line between men's and women's sports?

Men's and women's sports are separate categories because it's the only way to preserve women's sports, especially at the top competitive levels. Putting men and women in the same category of sports would result in almost entirely male sports.

Unless the two categories are meaningless, separating men and women into different categories means that some sort of line has to be drawn between men's sports and women's sports.

How to draw that line is a hard question without any perfect answers, but no one is a bigot for thinking that such a line has to be drawn. Having to draw that line is something inherent in the idea of having male and female categories for athletes.

Rojo has found our journalist friend.

You've already hit the nail on the head - you need to consistently reframe the entire debate as a call for non gender based categorization.

It's no longer about whether Caster ought be allowed compete as a female. That ship has sailed.

I for one wish her all the best under the current system. Give 'em hell Caster!

However I do think the system should be changed.

(^^) wrote:

I wonder what this journalist thinks about Shannon Rowbury?

Rowbury wears the lipstick of her grandma. Of course she's an outdated bigot.

Haz Bin wrote:

0.01% wrote:

0.01%? That's 1 out of every 10,000,000 million people.

There are roughly 1,000 medals awarded at the Olympics. So, 0.00001% of the world's population. So, there are 1,000 times more athletes putting females at risk of losing than there are Olympic medalists. That is truly amazing.

.01% is not one out of every 10 million people (or even 10 million million people, as you wrote).

Let's do some math:

1% = 1/100

0.1% = 1/1000

0.01% = 1/10,000

So, 1 in 10,000 women are gender cheats? Assuming 3.5 billion women in the world then there are 350,000 gender cheaters. In 2012, 4,676 women Olympians. Since there are so dare many gender cheaters, it seems like that most women in the Olympics are cheaters; certainly more the 1 in 10,000. There has to be more than one at the Olympic Games. Maybe 100, or more.

the journalist sounds like the one who just wrote that slanted article on the Indian athlete.