Caster Semenya is back baby!

prickle wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

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.

RunRagged wrote:

prickle wrote:

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.

Really? You're gonna blame your ignorance of the facts in the Semenya case on your phone's browser PDF search function?

The smart-phone era equivalent of "my dog at my homework" is the best you can do?

You constantly claim to be far more informed about sex/gender issues, males in female sports, and the Semenya case than I am and than most other posters are. So why on earth would you have to rely on your "phone browser's PDF search" function to know what issues, arguments and terminology at the heart of the Semenya case were and are? I woud have thought you knew the case as well as you know the proverbial back of your hand.

It was in May 2019 - more than 4 years ago - that the CAS published its 163-page decision clearly spelling out all the issues, arguments and lingo used in the Semenya case by all parties. The fact that after all this time you've not bothered to read it - or even skim it with your own eyeballs - speaks volumes about you.

Page 71, paragraph 284 of the CAS decision is where the positions of the IAAF begin to be set out.

284. The IAAF's submissions, in essence, can be summarised as follows:

285. The IAAF began its written submissions by contending that the arguments advanced by Ms. Semenya and the ASA do not engage with the facts at the heart of the case. Those facts demonstrate that the DSD Regulations are "an extremely progressive and fair compromise" between, on the one hand, the right of female athletes to compete separately from men so they have the same opportunity to excel, and, on the other hand, the right of "certain biologically male athletes with female gender identities" to compete in the female category of competition.

289. The IAAF states that while it fully supports the rights of individuals to be accepted on the basis of their chosen legal sex and/or gender identity... "there are some contexts where biology has to trump identity." In this respect, the IAAF submits that evidence is clear that athletes with [the DSD known as] 5-ARD have a significant performance advantage when they compet in the female category.

Athletes with 5-ARD are "biologically... the same in every material respect as male athletes without DSDs."

Because they are "biologically indistinguishable... in all relevant respects," athletes with 5-ARD experience the same ergogenic effects... as males without DSD experience. The only material physical difference between 5-ARD and male athletes without DSD are "the size and shape of their external genitals, " which has no impact on sports performance.

Accordingly, as long as males and females compete separately for reasons of fairness, eligibility to compete in the women's category must be based on the relevant differences between biological males and biological females.

prickle wrote:

RunRagged wrote:

Really? You're gonna blame your ignorance of the facts in the Semenya case on your phone's browser PDF search function?

The smart-phone era equivalent of "my dog at my homework" is the best you can do?

You constantly claim to be far more informed about sex/gender issues, males in female sports, and the Semenya case than I am and than most other posters are. So why on earth would you have to rely on your "phone browser's PDF search" function to know what issues, arguments and terminology at the heart of the Semenya case were and are? I woud have thought you knew the case as well as you know the proverbial back of your hand.

It was in May 2019 - more than 4 years ago - that the CAS published its 163-page decision clearly spelling out all the issues, arguments and lingo used in the Semenya case by all parties. The fact that after all this time you've not bothered to read it - or even skim it with your own eyeballs - speaks volumes about you.

Page 71, paragraph 284 of the CAS decision is where the positions of the IAAF begin to be set out.

284. The IAAF's submissions, in essence, can be summarised as follows:

285. The IAAF began its written submissions by contending that the arguments advanced by Ms. Semenya and the ASA do not engage with the facts at the heart of the case. Those facts demonstrate that the DSD Regulations are "an extremely progressive and fair compromise" between, on the one hand, the right of female athletes to compete separately from men so they have the same opportunity to excel, and, on the other hand, the right of "certain biologically male athletes with female gender identities" to compete in the female category of competition.

289. The IAAF states that while it fully supports the rights of individuals to be accepted on the basis of their chosen legal sex and/or gender identity... "there are some contexts where biology has to trump identity." In this respect, the IAAF submits that evidence is clear that athletes with [the DSD known as] 5-ARD have a significant performance advantage when they compet in the female category.

Athletes with 5-ARD are "biologically... the same in every material respect as male athletes without DSDs."

Because they are "biologically indistinguishable... in all relevant respects," athletes with 5-ARD experience the same ergogenic effects... as males without DSD experience. The only material physical difference between 5-ARD and male athletes without DSD are "the size and shape of their external genitals, " which has no impact on sports performance.

Accordingly, as long as males and females compete separately for reasons of fairness, eligibility to compete in the women's category must be based on the relevant differences between biological males and biological females.

Eh, why should I do the work when I know you are dying to service me? I’m not with my computer all day, rarely ever, on this site.

As I wrote in my previous post, it doesn’t change the fact that WA considers them women in contrast to your transphobic insistence otherwise.