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, human sex development, the physical differences between the sexes in our species, and the specifics of 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 find out the terminology, concepts, issues, and arguments that are/were at the heart of the Semenya case? 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.
You are right that posters post without bothering to read or study what they think they know about.
The above extract proves that posters lie or are incompetent or both.
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 Dutee Chand's karyotype: I've said before in posts responding to you personally that I don't know what Chand's karytotype is - that info wasn't disclosed in the legal proceedings in Chand's case.
But I assume Chand has a Y chromosome, or at least the male-determining SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Because the only way a person could have the levels of natural testosterone that Chand was found to have is to be in possession of pair of well-developed testes that are in good working order in terms of testosterone production. And in order to grow testes, a person has to have either a Y chromosome or to be one of the vanishingly rare XX persons in whom the SRY gene somehow ended up on one of the X chromosomes.
Nearly a decade ago when Chand was found to have endogenous testosterone levels exceeding the IAAF's upper limit for athletes competing in the women's category, the upper limit was 10 nmol/L.
For comparison, the normal male range of T (7.7-29.4 nmol/L); the normal female range is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If female people with hyperandrogenism are factored in, the normal female range is 0.2-2.4 nmol/L. 99.99% of women including elite female athletes have T under 3 nmol/L.
In the legal proceedings in the Chand case, Chand’s level of T was not disclosed. But as CAS wrote in its decision, page 12, throughout the Chand case, all parties involved “proceeded on the assumption that Dutee Chand has an endogenous level of testosterone greater than 10 nmol/L.” Because at the time 10 nmol/L was the upper limit at the time that Chand’s T was found to exceed the upper limit.
Moreover, one of the main points of contention in Chand’s case against the IAAF was the disput overwhether “10 nmol/L is the scientifically correct threshold at which female athletes are in the “male range” of endogenous testosterone”
Page 34, Chand contends that the IAAF’s regulations rested on two premises that are “fundamentally wrong,” namely: - That exogenous testosterone confers benefits that matter in athletic performance - That it’s possible to draw a clear line between male range and female range of endogenous testosterone
Page 35, Chand contends: - The ranges of endogenous testosterone levels in males male and female overlap naturally - Athletes who have testosterone in excess of the IAAF’s threshold of 10 nmol/L fall within the normal range for female testosterone levels
Whilst I think Chand was totally justified in challenging the IAAF's "Hyperandrogemism Regulations" that were in place when Chand was found to be over the 10 nmol/L threshold, and I am glad Chand litigated the case, Chand's positions were faulty from the start and they have only weakened with the passage of time.
Since the Chand case was litigated, lots of scientifically sound evidence has demonstrated that the only way a female human being could have T anywhere approaching 10 nmol/L would be if she had life-threatening testosterone-secreting tumor. A woman with such a tumor would be too sick to be competing in elite track & field - or in any sport.
Whatever Chand's karyotype is, Chand has to have either a Y chromosome or male-determining SRY gene. Because testes are necessary to produce the distinctly male levels of natural testosterone Chand was found to have.
If Chand has AIS as is often rumored and claimed, then Chand undoubtedly has a Y chromsome and only one X. Because the androgen receptor gene is located on the X chromosome. As a result, when people with two X chromosomes have mutations of the AR gene that cause AIS in males, the normal AR gene on their other X chromosome comes into force. Which is one of the several reasons why AIS is both a male-only condition and a male-only DSD.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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 Dutee Chand's karyotype: I've said before in posts responding to you personally that I don't know what Chand's karytotype is - that info wasn't disclosed in the legal proceedings in Chand's case.
But I assume Chand has a Y chromosome, or at least the male-determining SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Because the only way a person could have the levels of natural testosterone that Chand was found to have is to be in possession of pair of well-developed testes that are in good working order in terms of testosterone production. And in order to grow testes, a person has to have either a Y chromosome or to be one of the vanishingly rare XX persons in whom the SRY gene somehow ended up on one of the X chromosomes.
Nearly a decade ago when Chand was found to have endogenous testosterone levels exceeding the IAAF's upper limit for athletes competing in the women's category, the upper limit was 10 nmol/L.
For comparison, the normal male range of T (7.7-29.4 nmol/L); the normal female range is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If female people with hyperandrogenism are factored in, the normal female range is 0.2-2.4 nmol/L. 99.99% of women including elite female athletes have T under 3 nmol/L.
In the legal proceedings in the Chand case, Chand’s level of T was not disclosed. But as CAS wrote in its decision, page 12, throughout the Chand case, all parties involved “proceeded on the assumption that Dutee Chand has an endogenous level of testosterone greater than 10 nmol/L.” Because at the time 10 nmol/L was the upper limit at the time that Chand’s T was found to exceed the upper limit.
Moreover, one of the main points of contention in Chand’s case against the IAAF was the disput overwhether “10 nmol/L is the scientifically correct threshold at which female athletes are in the “male range” of endogenous testosterone”
Page 34, Chand contends that the IAAF’s regulations rested on two premises that are “fundamentally wrong,” namely: - That exogenous testosterone confers benefits that matter in athletic performance - That it’s possible to draw a clear line between male range and female range of endogenous testosterone
Page 35, Chand contends: - The ranges of endogenous testosterone levels in males male and female overlap naturally - Athletes who have testosterone in excess of the IAAF’s threshold of 10 nmol/L fall within the normal range for female testosterone levels
Whilst I think Chand was totally justified in challenging the IAAF's "Hyperandrogemism Regulations" that were in place when Chand was found to be over the 10 nmol/L threshold, and I am glad Chand litigated the case, Chand's positions were faulty from the start and they have only weakened with the passage of time.
Since the Chand case was litigated, lots of scientifically sound evidence has demonstrated that the only way a female human being could have T anywhere approaching 10 nmol/L would be if she had life-threatening testosterone-secreting tumor. A woman with such a tumor would be too sick to be competing in elite track & field - or in any sport.
Whatever Chand's karyotype is, Chand has to have either a Y chromosome or male-determining SRY gene. Because testes are necessary to produce the distinctly male levels of natural testosterone Chand was found to have.
If Chand has AIS as is often rumored and claimed, then Chand undoubtedly has a Y chromsome and only one X. Because the androgen receptor gene is located on the X chromosome. As a result, when people with two X chromosomes have mutations of the AR gene that cause AIS in males, the normal AR gene on their other X chromosome comes into force. Which is one of the several reasons why AIS is both a male-only condition and a male-only DSD.
Thank you for your clear explanations in this thread. The problem is, I don't think a lot of people are educated in the basics of human biology and cannot understand the explanation even when made fairly simple.
As a lawyer, I'm fairly worried by the judicial decision making going on. There is evidence and then there is requiring evidence to such a degree that it almost cannot be fulfilled. Its normal in court to have what is called "self-proving evidence" which is general human knowledge so basic that evidence is not required to substantiate it.
I am also rather flabbergasted that the recent ECHR appeal hearing in Semenya v. Switzerland was composed of entirely male judges. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, but not one single one could be found to sit on that decision, never mind an equitable number.
I think what the Tribunal is in danger of doing here, and it has been said in other cases that it has done, is to require evidence which goes beyond the standard of evidence normally required. In other words, the standard of evidence is changed by the court, but is not subject to any rules in doing so and is applied only where the court decides to do so. It is in danger of purposive decision making (again a criticism made not infrequently against the ECHR) where its role as interpretor of the ECHR is extended to becoming that of lawmaker in order for it to fulfil a certain policy to change society for ideological reasons. The fact that this purposive decision making, if it exists, is likely to severely disadvantage women athletes and advantage male athletes, and is presided over by an entirely male judiciary, really makes this all rather distasteful. It is hopefully something that people will look back on in 50 or 100 years time as a particularly bad episode of anti-women ideology and the balance will swing back in favour of equality of opportunity with appropriate sex based safeguards in place.
There are of course many ways of making decisions in such matters, for example, for the greater good ie public policy as it is known, but the present ideology appears so far to be to enable as much as possible the minority view and ignore all other forms of discrimination in favour of one preferred modus. What are the motives for this? A lot of men, including judges, simply do not like women, or do not like them having opportunities to excel, and deny the safeguards that are required. A lot of non-legally educated people mistake equality of opportunity, which is generally safeguarded in law, for "equality between the sexes.
As for Dutee Chand's karyotype: I've said before in posts responding to you personally that I don't know what Chand's karytotype is - that info wasn't disclosed in the legal proceedings in Chand's case.
But I assume Chand has a Y chromosome, or at least the male-determining SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Because the only way a person could have the levels of natural testosterone that Chand was found to have is to be in possession of pair of well-developed testes that are in good working order in terms of testosterone production. And in order to grow testes, a person has to have either a Y chromosome or to be one of the vanishingly rare XX persons in whom the SRY gene somehow ended up on one of the X chromosomes.
Nearly a decade ago when Chand was found to have endogenous testosterone levels exceeding the IAAF's upper limit for athletes competing in the women's category, the upper limit was 10 nmol/L.
For comparison, the normal male range of T (7.7-29.4 nmol/L); the normal female range is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If female people with hyperandrogenism are factored in, the normal female range is 0.2-2.4 nmol/L. 99.99% of women including elite female athletes have T under 3 nmol/L.
In the legal proceedings in the Chand case, Chand’s level of T was not disclosed. But as CAS wrote in its decision, page 12, throughout the Chand case, all parties involved “proceeded on the assumption that Dutee Chand has an endogenous level of testosterone greater than 10 nmol/L.” Because at the time 10 nmol/L was the upper limit at the time that Chand’s T was found to exceed the upper limit.
Moreover, one of the main points of contention in Chand’s case against the IAAF was the disput overwhether “10 nmol/L is the scientifically correct threshold at which female athletes are in the “male range” of endogenous testosterone”
Page 34, Chand contends that the IAAF’s regulations rested on two premises that are “fundamentally wrong,” namely: - That exogenous testosterone confers benefits that matter in athletic performance - That it’s possible to draw a clear line between male range and female range of endogenous testosterone
Page 35, Chand contends: - The ranges of endogenous testosterone levels in males male and female overlap naturally - Athletes who have testosterone in excess of the IAAF’s threshold of 10 nmol/L fall within the normal range for female testosterone levels
Whilst I think Chand was totally justified in challenging the IAAF's "Hyperandrogemism Regulations" that were in place when Chand was found to be over the 10 nmol/L threshold, and I am glad Chand litigated the case, Chand's positions were faulty from the start and they have only weakened with the passage of time.
Since the Chand case was litigated, lots of scientifically sound evidence has demonstrated that the only way a female human being could have T anywhere approaching 10 nmol/L would be if she had life-threatening testosterone-secreting tumor. A woman with such a tumor would be too sick to be competing in elite track & field - or in any sport.
Whatever Chand's karyotype is, Chand has to have either a Y chromosome or male-determining SRY gene. Because testes are necessary to produce the distinctly male levels of natural testosterone Chand was found to have.
If Chand has AIS as is often rumored and claimed, then Chand undoubtedly has a Y chromsome and only one X. Because the androgen receptor gene is located on the X chromosome. As a result, when people with two X chromosomes have mutations of the AR gene that cause AIS in males, the normal AR gene on their other X chromosome comes into force. Which is one of the several reasons why AIS is both a male-only condition and a male-only DSD.
Thank you for your clear explanations in this thread. The problem is, I don't think a lot of people are educated in the basics of human biology and cannot understand the explanation even when made fairly simple.
As a lawyer, I'm fairly worried by the judicial decision making going on. There is evidence and then there is requiring evidence to such a degree that it almost cannot be fulfilled. Its normal in court to have what is called "self-proving evidence" which is general human knowledge so basic that evidence is not required to substantiate it.
I am also rather flabbergasted that the recent ECHR appeal hearing in Semenya v. Switzerland was composed of entirely male judges. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, but not one single one could be found to sit on that decision, never mind an equitable number.
I think what the Tribunal is in danger of doing here, and it has been said in other cases that it has done, is to require evidence which goes beyond the standard of evidence normally required. In other words, the standard of evidence is changed by the court, but is not subject to any rules in doing so and is applied only where the court decides to do so. It is in danger of purposive decision making (again a criticism made not infrequently against the ECHR) where its role as interpretor of the ECHR is extended to becoming that of lawmaker in order for it to fulfil a certain policy to change society for ideological reasons. The fact that this purposive decision making, if it exists, is likely to severely disadvantage women athletes and advantage male athletes, and is presided over by an entirely male judiciary, really makes this all rather distasteful. It is hopefully something that people will look back on in 50 or 100 years time as a particularly bad episode of anti-women ideology and the balance will swing back in favour of equality of opportunity with appropriate sex based safeguards in place.
There are of course many ways of making decisions in such matters, for example, for the greater good ie public policy as it is known, but the present ideology appears so far to be to enable as much as possible the minority view and ignore all other forms of discrimination in favour of one preferred modus. What are the motives for this? A lot of men, including judges, simply do not like women, or do not like them having opportunities to excel, and deny the safeguards that are required. A lot of non-legally educated people mistake equality of opportunity, which is generally safeguarded in law, for "equality between the sexes.
Great post.
As I see it is a social issue which all parties seek to deal with by reference to various levels of science to suit their perspective.
Thus is it a social construct and not capable of being resolved by science.We then have the extra element of general sexism thrown in.
The most remarkable feature of this construct was the way the original evidence was created.Breach of research ethics and then the most Bizzare selection of data to prove that of all the event those around 800 m where the only events that benefit from T. Try talking to throwers !
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 Dutee Chand's karyotype: I've said before in posts responding to you personally that I don't know what Chand's karytotype is - that info wasn't disclosed in the legal proceedings in Chand's case.
But I assume Chand has a Y chromosome, or at least the male-determining SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Because the only way a person could have the levels of natural testosterone that Chand was found to have is to be in possession of pair of well-developed testes that are in good working order in terms of testosterone production. And in order to grow testes, a person has to have either a Y chromosome or to be one of the vanishingly rare XX persons in whom the SRY gene somehow ended up on one of the X chromosomes.
Nearly a decade ago when Chand was found to have endogenous testosterone levels exceeding the IAAF's upper limit for athletes competing in the women's category, the upper limit was 10 nmol/L.
For comparison, the normal male range of T (7.7-29.4 nmol/L); the normal female range is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If female people with hyperandrogenism are factored in, the normal female range is 0.2-2.4 nmol/L. 99.99% of women including elite female athletes have T under 3 nmol/L.
In the legal proceedings in the Chand case, Chand’s level of T was not disclosed. But as CAS wrote in its decision, page 12, throughout the Chand case, all parties involved “proceeded on the assumption that Dutee Chand has an endogenous level of testosterone greater than 10 nmol/L.” Because at the time 10 nmol/L was the upper limit at the time that Chand’s T was found to exceed the upper limit.
Moreover, one of the main points of contention in Chand’s case against the IAAF was the disput overwhether “10 nmol/L is the scientifically correct threshold at which female athletes are in the “male range” of endogenous testosterone”
Page 34, Chand contends that the IAAF’s regulations rested on two premises that are “fundamentally wrong,” namely: - That exogenous testosterone confers benefits that matter in athletic performance - That it’s possible to draw a clear line between male range and female range of endogenous testosterone
Page 35, Chand contends: - The ranges of endogenous testosterone levels in males male and female overlap naturally - Athletes who have testosterone in excess of the IAAF’s threshold of 10 nmol/L fall within the normal range for female testosterone levels
Whilst I think Chand was totally justified in challenging the IAAF's "Hyperandrogemism Regulations" that were in place when Chand was found to be over the 10 nmol/L threshold, and I am glad Chand litigated the case, Chand's positions were faulty from the start and they have only weakened with the passage of time.
Since the Chand case was litigated, lots of scientifically sound evidence has demonstrated that the only way a female human being could have T anywhere approaching 10 nmol/L would be if she had life-threatening testosterone-secreting tumor. A woman with such a tumor would be too sick to be competing in elite track & field - or in any sport.
Whatever Chand's karyotype is, Chand has to have either a Y chromosome or male-determining SRY gene. Because testes are necessary to produce the distinctly male levels of natural testosterone Chand was found to have.
If Chand has AIS as is often rumored and claimed, then Chand undoubtedly has a Y chromsome and only one X. Because the androgen receptor gene is located on the X chromosome. As a result, when people with two X chromosomes have mutations of the AR gene that cause AIS in males, the normal AR gene on their other X chromosome comes into force. Which is one of the several reasons why AIS is both a male-only condition and a male-only DSD.
“Consistently”? Here’s an example where you were being intentionally duplicitous, not presenting evidence but not acknowledging you couldn’t be positive either. It took several other instances of pushback before you started acknowledging it is your contention, not necessarily fact.
Excerpts from report by Matt Lawton, Chief Sports Correspondent, and Rick Broadbent, Sports Writer, The Times of London, published Thursday, Jan 26, 2023, 6.40pm GMT:World Athletics set to move towards a new open category in...
As for Dutee Chand's karyotype: I've said before in posts responding to you personally that I don't know what Chand's karytotype is - that info wasn't disclosed in the legal proceedings in Chand's case.
But I assume Chand has a Y chromosome, or at least the male-determining SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Because the only way a person could have the levels of natural testosterone that Chand was found to have is to be in possession of pair of well-developed testes that are in good working order in terms of testosterone production. And in order to grow testes, a person has to have either a Y chromosome or to be one of the vanishingly rare XX persons in whom the SRY gene somehow ended up on one of the X chromosomes.
Nearly a decade ago when Chand was found to have endogenous testosterone levels exceeding the IAAF's upper limit for athletes competing in the women's category, the upper limit was 10 nmol/L.
For comparison, the normal male range of T (7.7-29.4 nmol/L); the normal female range is 0.2-1.68 nmol/L. If female people with hyperandrogenism are factored in, the normal female range is 0.2-2.4 nmol/L. 99.99% of women including elite female athletes have T under 3 nmol/L.
In the legal proceedings in the Chand case, Chand’s level of T was not disclosed. But as CAS wrote in its decision, page 12, throughout the Chand case, all parties involved “proceeded on the assumption that Dutee Chand has an endogenous level of testosterone greater than 10 nmol/L.” Because at the time 10 nmol/L was the upper limit at the time that Chand’s T was found to exceed the upper limit.
Moreover, one of the main points of contention in Chand’s case against the IAAF was the disput overwhether “10 nmol/L is the scientifically correct threshold at which female athletes are in the “male range” of endogenous testosterone”
Page 34, Chand contends that the IAAF’s regulations rested on two premises that are “fundamentally wrong,” namely: - That exogenous testosterone confers benefits that matter in athletic performance - That it’s possible to draw a clear line between male range and female range of endogenous testosterone
Page 35, Chand contends: - The ranges of endogenous testosterone levels in males male and female overlap naturally - Athletes who have testosterone in excess of the IAAF’s threshold of 10 nmol/L fall within the normal range for female testosterone levels
Whilst I think Chand was totally justified in challenging the IAAF's "Hyperandrogemism Regulations" that were in place when Chand was found to be over the 10 nmol/L threshold, and I am glad Chand litigated the case, Chand's positions were faulty from the start and they have only weakened with the passage of time.
Since the Chand case was litigated, lots of scientifically sound evidence has demonstrated that the only way a female human being could have T anywhere approaching 10 nmol/L would be if she had life-threatening testosterone-secreting tumor. A woman with such a tumor would be too sick to be competing in elite track & field - or in any sport.
Whatever Chand's karyotype is, Chand has to have either a Y chromosome or male-determining SRY gene. Because testes are necessary to produce the distinctly male levels of natural testosterone Chand was found to have.
If Chand has AIS as is often rumored and claimed, then Chand undoubtedly has a Y chromsome and only one X. Because the androgen receptor gene is located on the X chromosome. As a result, when people with two X chromosomes have mutations of the AR gene that cause AIS in males, the normal AR gene on their other X chromosome comes into force. Which is one of the several reasons why AIS is both a male-only condition and a male-only DSD.
Thank you for your clear explanations in this thread. The problem is, I don't think a lot of people are educated in the basics of human biology and cannot understand the explanation even when made fairly simple.
As a lawyer, I'm fairly worried by the judicial decision making going on. There is evidence and then there is requiring evidence to such a degree that it almost cannot be fulfilled. Its normal in court to have what is called "self-proving evidence" which is general human knowledge so basic that evidence is not required to substantiate it.
I am also rather flabbergasted that the recent ECHR appeal hearing in Semenya v. Switzerland was composed of entirely male judges. Women make up slightly more than 50% of the population, but not one single one could be found to sit on that decision, never mind an equitable number.
I think what the Tribunal is in danger of doing here, and it has been said in other cases that it has done, is to require evidence which goes beyond the standard of evidence normally required. In other words, the standard of evidence is changed by the court, but is not subject to any rules in doing so and is applied only where the court decides to do so. It is in danger of purposive decision making (again a criticism made not infrequently against the ECHR) where its role as interpretor of the ECHR is extended to becoming that of lawmaker in order for it to fulfil a certain policy to change society for ideological reasons. The fact that this purposive decision making, if it exists, is likely to severely disadvantage women athletes and advantage male athletes, and is presided over by an entirely male judiciary, really makes this all rather distasteful. It is hopefully something that people will look back on in 50 or 100 years time as a particularly bad episode of anti-women ideology and the balance will swing back in favour of equality of opportunity with appropriate sex based safeguards in place.
There are of course many ways of making decisions in such matters, for example, for the greater good ie public policy as it is known, but the present ideology appears so far to be to enable as much as possible the minority view and ignore all other forms of discrimination in favour of one preferred modus. What are the motives for this? A lot of men, including judges, simply do not like women, or do not like them having opportunities to excel, and deny the safeguards that are required. A lot of non-legally educated people mistake equality of opportunity, which is generally safeguarded in law, for "equality between the sexes.
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, human sex development, the physical differences between the sexes in our species, and the specifics of 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 find out the terminology, concepts, issues, and arguments that are/were at the heart of the Semenya case? 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.
You are right that posters post without bothering to read or study what they think they know about.
The above extract proves that posters lie or are incompetent or both.
You're certainly right about yourself - on both counts.
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.
WA don't consider them women or they would not be imposing conditions on their participation that address their male advantages.
They don't argue with Semenya's and such similar athletes' self-label, just the fact that the label doesn't change the reality they are effectively male. It is a distinction you are unable to grasp; your ideology won't let you.
This post was edited 44 seconds after it was posted.
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.
WA don't consider them women or they would not be imposing conditions on their participation that address their male advantages.
They don't argue with Semenya's and such similar athletes' self-label, just the fact that the label doesn't change the reality they are effectively male. It is a distinction you are unable to grasp; your ideology won't let you.
Would you like to refer to the CAS decision to substantiate your views other wise we will all think you are an uneducated bigot; perish the thought.
I remind all that Armstrong said that there is no evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese; even though his Dad brought a lump back July 1969.
Medical books and Science have also avoided entering his brain.
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.