Can, now, someone put this into context of the EHRC’s decision and the future.
Also let’s not forget if the test controls can be manipulated.
I don't know what you mean by "test controls can be manipulated." But if you're talking about testing of testosterone levels, yes there's pleny of room for manipulating the testosterone testing results of males - be they XY DSD males, trans-identified males or bog standard males. There are apparently quite a number and variety of ways for males to fudge things in order to skirt the T rules imposed on DMSD and trans-identified males in women sports.
This just adds to the many arguments why males shouldn't be allowed in female sports even under rules requiring them to reduce their T for a time.
So quite a number!
So please tell mine a couple of ways athletes can pass a test but basically they still have their high T levels.
In any case, using “biological males” in a court argument for communicating the performance advantages of male-leaning sex characteristics does not mean WA does not recognize Semnya as a woman, and none of the language in WA’s eligibility rules for the women’s category uses the term “biological male” or considers the likes of Semenya as anything but a woman.
Huh? And LOL.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
In any case, using “biological males” in a court argument for communicating the performance advantages of male-leaning sex characteristics does not mean WA does not recognize Semnya as a woman, and none of the language in WA’s eligibility rules for the women’s category uses the term “biological male” or considers the likes of Semenya as anything but a woman.
Huh? And LOL.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
Oh and I forgot to address you as sweetie, so consider that affectionate affectation expressed.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
I may not grasp or agree with what Run R says but Run R is the best poster on the Board.
You on the other hand ; a royal right prickle perhaps ?
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
I may not grasp or agree with what Run R says but Run R is the best poster on the Board.
You on the other hand ; a royal right prickle perhaps ?
Wasn’t talking to you and don’t care for your opinion, honey.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
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.
You have failed to understand that this is not about gender.But then you seem not to understand much.
It is all about gender. If it was only about sex there could be no argument. But you are too much of a moron to see that.
Oh Christ. Not this sht again. I really don't think either of these things hypothetically would be OK: 1. biological males in women's races - not referring to anyone specific there, just the concept in general a la Lyndsey Sharp 2. doping offences (state-sanctioned).
I don't know what you mean by "test controls can be manipulated." But if you're talking about testing of testosterone levels, yes there's pleny of room for manipulating the testosterone testing results of males - be they XY DSD males, trans-identified males or bog standard males. There are apparently quite a number and variety of ways for males to fudge things in order to skirt the T rules imposed on DMSD and trans-identified males in women sports.
This just adds to the many arguments why males shouldn't be allowed in female sports even under rules requiring them to reduce their T for a time.
So quite a number!
So please tell mine a couple of ways athletes can pass a test but basically they still have their high T levels.
At 07/13/2023 12:21pm EDT you, prickle, made a post, in repy to Read the actual judgement that slagged off me, RunRagged, as you usually do on these threads.
Yesterday you hilariously accused me of having a new kind of predjudice/mental illness you made up - "Y phobia" I think it was. Just a few hours ago you wrote this gem of a post about me:
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.
It's pretty rich that just hours after monstering me as a "certified transphobe" with "vicious fangs" and dehumanizing me as an "it," you're now asking me to provide you with a source for a statement I made.
If I am as untrustworthy, evil, stupid and uninformed as you routinely contend - and all my posts are a waste of time like you routinely carp too - then I can't see what difference it could possibly make to you if I shared where I got that piece of information from.
But for others reading the thread who might be interested: the source is the May 2019 decision issued by the CAS in the Semenya case.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
Nah, mate, I'm not the mendacious (untruthful) one here. The word "biological" and the terms "biological males" and "biological females" appear many places in the pdf of the 2019 CAS decision in the Semenya case that I attached.
On page 9, the CAS says that one of Semenya's main beefs in the case was/is with the IAAF's contention that Semenya and the other XY athletes in women's track & field with the specific DMSDs that make them subject to the IAAF/WA's DSDs regulations are "biological males."
V. SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES
50. Ms. Semenya's submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
51: The DSD regulations are discriminatory:
First, the DSD Regulations discriminate on the basis of birth or natural, physical, genetic or biological traits. The Regulations restrict the ability of some female athletes* to compete based solely on a natural or genetic trait they have possessed since birth and over which they have no control.
Second, the DSD Regulations discriminate against female athletes* on the basis of sex. The Regulations impose thresholds and burdens (such as screening for high testosterone, invasive medical exams and eligibility restrictions) on female athletes* while no equivalent requirements are applied to male athletes. Further, IAAF's position (advanced for the first time in these proceedings) that women with 46,XY DSDs are "biological males" is itself a form of discrimination based on a sex characteristic.
This is just one of many places in the 163-page CAS decision in the Semenya case where the term "biological" and "biological males" or "biological male" appear.
By claiming that these terms don't appear in the CAS Semenya decision, you're just showing you either haven't read the decision, or you have poor reading skills. Pretty rich given that in the innumerable posts on LRC threads you've made to slag me off personally, you've said many times that I'm the one who can't read - and you've further said I'm too stupid, unsophisticated and uneducated to begin to understand the issues at hand in the Semenya case and in the debate about males in female sports generally.
*I put an asterisk after "female athletes" in the passages from the CAS decision quoted above because IMO, it's inaccurate to call Semenya and the other athletes subject to WA's DSD regulations "female athletes" - and, again IMO, the custom of doing so is a big reason for all the confusion and contention over athletes like Semenya in women's sports and about WA's special DSD regulations pertaining only to those athletes.
I think the issues at hand in the Semenya case would be much clearer if athletes like Semenya were called "athletes competing in the female division," "athletes seeking to compete in the female division," "XY DSD athletes in the female division" or - better yet, "male athletes with DSDs" and "male athletes with male DSDs" competing in the female division - rather than "female athletes."
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
So please tell mine a couple of ways athletes can pass a test but basically they still have their high T levels.
Response please
No. I don't condone cheating of any kind, and I oppose male athletes like Semenya et al being allowed into the female category even with their T reduced. So I'm not gonna tell you how such athletes can manipulate their testosterone levels to clear the tests.
If you're genuinely interested, look into the topic yourself.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
Nah, mate, I'm not the mendacious (untruthful) one here. The word "biological" and the terms "biological males" and "biological females" appear many places in the pdf of the 2019 CAS decision in the Semenya case that I attached.
On page 9, the CAS says that one of Semenya's main beefs in the case was/is with the IAAF's contention that Semenya and the other XY athletes in women's track & field with the specific DMSDs that make them subject to the IAAF/WA's DSDs regulations are "biological males."
V. SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES
50. Ms. Semenya's submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
51: The DSD regulations are discriminatory:
First, the DSD Regulations discriminate on the basis of birth or natural, physical, genetic or biological traits. The Regulations restrict the ability of some female athletes* to compete based solely on a natural or genetic trait they have possessed since birth and over which they have no control.
Second, the DSD Regulations discriminate against female athletes* on the basis of sex. The Regulations impose thresholds and burdens (such as screening for high testosterone, invasive medical exams and eligibility restrictions) on female athletes* while no equivalent requirements are applied to male athletes. Further, IAAF's position (advanced for the first time in these proceedings) that women with 46,XY DSDs are "biological males" is itself a form of discrimination based on a sex characteristic.
This is just one of many places in the 163-page CAS decision in the Semenya case where the term "biological" and "biological males" or "biological male" appear.
By claiming that these terms don't appear in the CAS Semenya case decision, you're just showing you either haven't read the decision, or you have poor reading skills. Pretty rich given that in the innumerable posts on LRC threads you've made to slag me off personally, you've said many times that I'm the one who can't read - and you've further said I'm too stupid, unsophisticated and uneducated to begin to understand the issues at hand in the Semenya case and in the debate about males in female sports generally.
*I put an asterisk after "female athletes" in the passages from the CAS decision quoted above because IMO, it's inaccurate to call Semenya and the other athletes subject to WA's DSD regulations "female athletes" - and, again IMO, the custom of doing so is a big reason for all the confusion and contention over athletes like Semenya in women's sports and about WA's special DSD regulations pertaining only to those athletes.
I think the issues at hand in the Semenya case would be much clearer if athletes like Semenya were called "athletes competing in the female division," "athletes seeking to compete in the female division," "XY DSD athletes in the female division" or - better yet, "male athletes with DSDs" and "male athletes with male DSDs" competing in the female division - rather than "female athletes."
I found that very useful esp the discrimination argument; even if I found it very difficult to agree with.
Now what about those many instances of how the T tests can be manipulated ?
And does anyone know what are the controls they put in?
No. I don't condone cheating of any kind, and I oppose male athletes like Semenya et al being allowed into the female category even with their T reduced. So I'm not gonna tell you how such athletes can manipulate their testosterone levels to clear the tests.
If you're genuinely interested, look into the topic yourself.
Sorry ; just read your refusal to explain yourself or provide any off the instances that such as CS can manipulate the tests.
I expected more from you.
There seems no info on how the test controls are run and thus it is not possible to guess how they can be manipulated. But you claim to know : so please tell.
“Huh? And LOL.” Are you surprised I gave you the dignity of plausible credibility on a specific claim (like I have more than once before)? I stand by what I said about you, not what you are blatherificating about what you fantasize I said about you.
The word “biological”, leave alone “biological male”, does not appear in the PDF you attached, so your mendacity lies bare yet again.
Nah, mate, I'm not the mendacious (untruthful) one here. The word "biological" and the terms "biological males" and "biological females" appear many places in the pdf of the 2019 CAS decision in the Semenya case that I attached.
On page 9, the CAS says that one of Semenya's main beefs in the case was/is with the IAAF's contention that Semenya and the other XY athletes in women's track & field with the specific DMSDs that make them subject to the IAAF/WA's DSDs regulations are "biological males."
V. SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES
50. Ms. Semenya's submissions, in essence, may be summarised as follows:
51: The DSD regulations are discriminatory:
First, the DSD Regulations discriminate on the basis of birth or natural, physical, genetic or biological traits. The Regulations restrict the ability of some female athletes* to compete based solely on a natural or genetic trait they have possessed since birth and over which they have no control.
Second, the DSD Regulations discriminate against female athletes* on the basis of sex. The Regulations impose thresholds and burdens (such as screening for high testosterone, invasive medical exams and eligibility restrictions) on female athletes* while no equivalent requirements are applied to male athletes. Further, IAAF's position (advanced for the first time in these proceedings) that women with 46,XY DSDs are "biological males" is itself a form of discrimination based on a sex characteristic.
This is just one of many places in the 163-page CAS decision in the Semenya case where the term "biological" and "biological males" or "biological male" appear.
By claiming that these terms don't appear in the CAS Semenya decision, you're just showing you either haven't read the decision, or you have poor reading skills. Pretty rich given that in the innumerable posts on LRC threads you've made to slag me off personally, you've said many times that I'm the one who can't read - and you've further said I'm too stupid, unsophisticated and uneducated to begin to understand the issues at hand in the Semenya case and in the debate about males in female sports generally.
*I put an asterisk after "female athletes" in the passages from the CAS decision quoted above because IMO, it's inaccurate to call Semenya and the other athletes subject to WA's DSD regulations "female athletes" - and, again IMO, the custom of doing so is a big reason for all the confusion and contention over athletes like Semenya in women's sports and about WA's special DSD regulations pertaining only to those athletes.
I think the issues at hand in the Semenya case would be much clearer if athletes like Semenya were called "athletes competing in the female division," "athletes seeking to compete in the female division," "XY DSD athletes in the female division" or - better yet, "male athletes with DSDs" and "male athletes with male DSDs" competing in the female division - rather than "female athletes."
Ok, my phone browser’s PDF search didn’t return any results for”biological”, but I’ll withdraw that claim and the mendacity charge on this one if it makes you feel better. It was more natural for me to assume you were up to your usual antics — like you’ve been earlier when I asked you to show evidence of Chand’s karyotype and you both miserably failed and refused to acknowledge it. As for your other attributions to me, you seem delirious on some potent intoxicant.
In any case, all you are still showing above is it’s Semenya’s assertion in court, but not quoting WA to that effect.
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.