“My testicles don’t make me less of a woman,” ~ Caster Semenya

icicle wrote:

arunnerinwa wrote:

Yes, sports are categorized based on sex. Her sex is male based chromosomes and sexual organs, so she is de facto not allowed to participate. There are many males with disorders related to sex that might make them disadvantaged compared to females. However, it is unreasonable that we should individually evaluate every male athlete to see whether they are disadvantaged as compared to female athletes. On the whole, being female is a disadvantage when it comes to athletic competition, and we have categorized sports, and especially professional sports accordingly.

Veering from this straightforward approach to categorization results in situations like the 2016 women's 800 m.

That’s just a false statement for running. WA is very clear that the categories are based on gender and uses the terms “woman” and “female” interchangeably. WA says transgenders are females.

Why do you keep insisting something that is not true? Can you not distinguish between what you want what is?

icicle wrote:

1L8A4H4 wrote:

Maybe I am uninformed, but as far as I know female is a biological category and Semenya does not fit into it. "Woman" is a social construct and whether she fits that definition is subjective. Do you disagree with that? What am I missing?

If as you say World Athletics is using "woman" and "female" interchangeably I would argue - based on my admittedly inexpert understanding - that they are incorrect, or at least unclear, in doing so.

That is not an unreasonable position, one also shared by many people on this site as well as outside. There are two problems when it comes to how that stance is wielded for policy making:

1) The distinction matters for mating and other proximate private acts between two consenting individuals, not for sports, not for pretty much anything in the real world (with some rare exceptions like selective service). Sports cares about performance and WA, however imperfectly, tries to define eligibility criteria based on neutralizing significant performance advantages across category subgroups (cis, trans, and intersex women), which is what this debate is about in the real world, not about testicular possession or lack thereof like the gamete supremacists here like to believe.

2) “Female” is not a policy panacea because sex is not binary. People here don’t like to hear it, but there is little disagreement on that among scientists and doctors. What the trans- and intersex-averse end up doing when pressed is to come up with an arbitrary line demarcating which phenotypical or genotypical set of traits land on which side of the line (and apologizing for or dismissing the very rare combinations that challenge their categorization), but those are just opinions, and there no consensus on such opinions, and nobody cares about that carefully crafted line in the real world.

GD wrote:

trackfangirl wrote:

The letsrun management putting Caster or related topics on here just so everyone gets their rocks off in a sea of ridicule and bigotry. I wonder if on this right wing channel which group of humans is hated more. Lots of people hate jews and antisemitism is on the rise, lots of people hate Palestinians, lots of people hate black people, lost of people hate gay people. I think this just the era of right wing hate. One thing you won't find on letsrun is love for the human race. letsrun is the fox news of track and field.

People hate lies. They hate being emotionally and socially blackmailed into endorsing obvious lies. They ridicule absurdity when social conventions prevent them from calling attention to lies in everyday life.

Also, your Manichean worldview is the wellspring of hate. Humans aren't either hateful or loving, good or bad. We're all capable of both. Humans are incredible and fallible. Consider stepping off your moral high horse for a second. It's fun down here in the trenches duking it out over who is right and who is wrong, holding onto the possibility that our own most cherished views will turn out to be factually wrong or morally specious. Push through the discomfort of vehement disagreement. It's like a tempo run. Sometimes it doesn't feel great, but it sharpens you, makes you stronger. This is what it means to live and be free. Your totalitarian worldview is the exact opposite, even when it calls itself love.

arunnerinwa wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

She would still look female even if her testes have not been removed. Her body does not respond to androgen so there is no way her body could masculinize. If she takes supplemental testosterone instead of estrogen, she would still look the same she does today. (I don't know which one she takes. Many women like her take testosterone.)

So what athletic advantage does she have? Should she be banned from women's sports even if she does not have any advantage?

Yes, sports are categorized based on sex. Her sex is male based chromosomes and sexual organs, so she is de facto not allowed to participate. There are many males with disorders related to sex that might make them disadvantaged compared to females. However, it is unreasonable that we should individually evaluate every male athlete to see whether they are disadvantaged as compared to female athletes. On the whole, being female is a disadvantage when it comes to athletic competition, and we have categorized sports, and especially professional sports accordingly.

Veering from this straightforward approach to categorization results in situations like the 2016 women's 800 m.

icicle wrote:

GD wrote:

People hate lies. They hate being emotionally and socially blackmailed into endorsing obvious lies. They ridicule absurdity when social conventions prevent them from calling attention to lies in everyday life.

Also, your Manichean worldview is the wellspring of hate. Humans aren't either hateful or loving, good or bad. We're all capable of both. Humans are incredible and fallible. Consider stepping off your moral high horse for a second. It's fun down here in the trenches duking it out over who is right and who is wrong, holding onto the possibility that our own most cherished views will turn out to be factually wrong or morally specious. Push through the discomfort of vehement disagreement. It's like a tempo run. Sometimes it doesn't feel great, but it sharpens you, makes you stronger. This is what it means to live and be free. Your totalitarian worldview is the exact opposite, even when it calls itself love.

What a load of blubberous blather. Amazing how many words one can thread together without saying anything substantive, just attacking the other person.

1L8A4H4 wrote:

icicle wrote:

That is not an unreasonable position, one also shared by many people on this site as well as outside. There are two problems when it comes to how that stance is wielded for policy making:

1) The distinction matters for mating and other proximate private acts between two consenting individuals, not for sports, not for pretty much anything in the real world (with some rare exceptions like selective service). Sports cares about performance and WA, however imperfectly, tries to define eligibility criteria based on neutralizing significant performance advantages across category subgroups (cis, trans, and intersex women), which is what this debate is about in the real world, not about testicular possession or lack thereof like the gamete supremacists here like to believe.

2) “Female” is not a policy panacea because sex is not binary. People here don’t like to hear it, but there is little disagreement on that among scientists and doctors. What the trans- and intersex-averse end up doing when pressed is to come up with an arbitrary line demarcating which phenotypical or genotypical set of traits land on which side of the line (and apologizing for or dismissing the very rare combinations that challenge their categorization), but those are just opinions, and there no consensus on such opinions, and nobody cares about that carefully crafted line in the real world.

I never said sex is binary - I don't know enough about biology to have anything like a comprehensive grasp of all the possible expressions of biological sexual expression. I said sex is a biological phenomenon and Semenya does not meet the criteria for "Female."

That is why I believe that there should be two sex categories in sports - "Female" and "Open." Only people who meet impartial/objective biological criteria for "Female" should be allowed to compete as such (for obvious reasons which many here obtusely ignore/deny). This would necessitate determining which biological components are essential to being categorized as "Female" but that is a relatively straightforward task; just say XX chromosomes and Testosterone below threshold ______. We already do biological passports and measure hormone levels and lots of science much more complex than that in order to ensure competitive fairness, so that shouldn't be hard AFAIK.

Everyone, without exception, should be welcome to compete in the "Open" category. Seems fair to me. Is it perfect? Possibly/probably not, but it's a lot more fair than having people compete as women who are biologically not female.

kiltedrunner wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

So it is not about athletic advantage? Fortunately, no sports organization agrees with you.

I can only imagine you're wilfully misunderstanding the other poster's excellent point. Your position is that any male who looks feminine enough (a point you always strenuously deny making but you literally just said: "She would still look female even if her testes have not been removed... instead of estrogen, she would still look the same she does today.") or believes strongly enough that they are a woman; then the default is that they should be allowed to compete with women, so long as they are not at a significant competitive advantage. I think that's a fair assessment of your longstanding position.

The other poster is saying at what point is it unreasonable to assess every sufficiently mediocre male athlete who wishes to participate in the female category? In theory, could one of these 'feminine looking' males sandbag the 'test' to ensure they appeared not to be at a significant competitive advantage and then trounce the competition when it mattered? If that's even a 1% possibility, then it undermines your whole argument about making sure no male has a significant competitive advantage. My position is that you can't get around the advantage problem between categories without protecting the category itself.