David Epstein explains why he no long supports the Semenya testosterone policies.

Translation: "To comment on this thread you may not present any counterpoints to what I am saying"

Tldr on the article though

Translation: I’m too dumb to read 1000 words and make an argument about “facts not feelings” :)

gkdkv wrote:

Translation: "To comment on this thread you may not present any counterpoints to what I am saying"

Tldr on the article though

Vancomycin wrote:

He has some very good points about the flimsy approach to her case and how it differs from other gender issues in sport. The IAAF simply failed to produce a report with sound enough data to support they forced medical interventions. This is unforgivable especially as there initial approach to the situation in 2008/2009 was unfathomably despicable - the burden is on them to demonstrate 1) the need for such policy 2) approach the issue with fairness and humanity. They have failed.

To participate in this thread. You may not mention 1) chromosomes/karyotype 2) anatomical differences 3) your condescending view on prescriptive sexual binary. While such discussions might be worthwhile in other contexts, they have no bearing on the CAS decision regarding the Semenya case.

The thing goes on forever but there doesn't seem to be much dispute about the basics. And I wish articles would stop mentioning transwoman as that is a whole different group of issues....

At a high level there are two points.

a) Caster higher Test levels is a large reason why she is fast. When they are reduced she goes from the best in the world to being just decent (like a 2:01 runner).

B) Is it fair that she gets to compete at those levels?

You can complain that it is odd that they only exclude certain events but that isn't because they don't think it would be an advantage there. But as the article has pointed out they are working off really limited data to begin with. It is easy to say the data is poor but it is a lot tougher to suggest ways of getting much better data.

Nobody really debates A. So it is all about B. Is this an acceptable advantage (i.e. being born with a high VO2max, long legs, right muscle fiber distribution,...) or not. If an athlete injected test to get those levels we would all want them banned. So is it ok if you just happen to be born that way?

It is unfair to ban Caster. She has done nothing wrong. It is also unfair to the other couple dozen world class woman who don't have this advantage. You are going to be unfair to someone, so who are you going to pick.

A big part of the problem, in my opinion is that the CAS has been forced to "prove" something that is blindingly obvious, but are forced to use an EXTREMELY narrow and small database of nonrandom, world-class women runners to do so.

It is obvious that T provides a performance advantage. Further, that advantage goes beyond merely having high T levels at one point in time. High T for many years shapes the body and confers a long term, perhaps lifetime, advantage.

A better solution would be to say, "Got testicles? Can't compete against women. Can't compete after removal for at least two years." The suppression rule is unfair in my opinion because it still gives Caster the ability to keep T levels higher than her competitors.

I've thought that a simple way is if you have a "Y" chromosome (oops...) that you compete in the "Open" division. Basically there is no men's division. If you are "XX" you participate on the XX division.

Caster should NEVER have been allowed to compete against women. There should be a separate division for XXY and transgender in the PARALYMPICS. This way Caster still gets to compete and be gold medalist - but in a fair competition.

It's the same as the wheelchair marathoners. The men's wheelchair marathon record is like 1 hour and 20 minutes. There's no genetic differences but clearly it's an advantage compared to men running on their own 2 legs. Do we let wheelchair marathoners compete in the same division as able-bodied men? No.

Paralympics for Caster is the only answer. Don't require any drugs or hormones or anything.

See this is why I had to include this rule. Chromosomes do not 100% predict 1) testosterone production 2) response to testosterone. You have can a Y chromosome and be completely androgen insensitive and seem 100% phenotypically female. In fact there are certainly previous gold medalists who fit this exact case and you've NEVER had qualms about them. In the 80s the IAAF tried to use chromosomal composition (presence of chr Y) to enforce the gender dichotomy and ran into too many edge cases to make it predictive/useful. If it worked they would've stuck with it. Clinging to chromosomal arguments is just clinging to failed science - it's why the IAAF shifted focus to a more mechanistically predictive method and conducted the testosterone study; unfortunately, it was poorly designed and under-powered, so we are in a position where the action is not commensurate to the data. The IAAF have no one to blame but themselves.

Luv2Run wrote:

I've thought that a simple way is if you have a "Y" chromosome (oops...) that you compete in the "Open" division. Basically there is no men's division. If you are "XX" you participate on the XX division.

I consider David a friend but he doesn't really offer a scientific reason as to why Semenya shouldnt' be able to compete. He does write this:

Epstein wrote:

Over time, I’ve become more drawn to the argument that athletes, like Semenya, who have been raised as women and who have lived as women and who identify as women should be allowed to compete as women. But Joanna wouldn’t be Joanna if she didn’t push me to think very hard about why I feel that way.

But then never really says explains scientifically why he thinks Semenya should be allowed to compete.

The criteria for competing in women's sports can't be "raised as a woman". What does that mean? The high school sprinters in connecticut, who used to be on the boys track team, are now being raised as women. So are they good to go? Ok, well what if you transition at age 5?

It's precisely because gender is hard to define is why we need to have medical cutoffs.

Do I think the science used to ban her was shoddy? Yes. And I can see why as a scientist he is bothered by that but it's hard to do great studies on that as there aren't very many intersex people in the world.

But let's don't over think this. Semenya is an intersex human who identifies as a woman. Intersex athletes should compete in their own category or the open/men's category. There is no human right to be in the women's category of the Olympics.

The reality is when I've asked experts on the matter - even one whom he quotes in his piece - if Semenya could ever biologically have children herself, there has never been any hesitation as to the answer. They all said there was zero chance she could ever give birth (no ovaries) but they weren't sure if she could father a child with her internal testicles.

I'm not saying the ability to give birth should be the criteria for women's athletics but am just using to point out how she's what almost anyone would describe as intersex biologically.

One last thing. He writes, "My experience doing investigative reporting on medicine has also made me feel skittish about medical interventions for asymptomatic people, even if they’re generally safe."

I agree. But she's not being forced to take drugs. She can be like the rest of us the 99.9999% that never make the Olympics.

I read it here it the translation for those who did not, "I don't wan't to express my real opinions because if I do I'm afraid I will be canceled."

I agree with the notion that the case presented by World Athletics was not great. One of the issues to me was it only covered certain events. Last time I check men are faster across the board than women so why a rule that prevents her from competing in the 800m without suppressing testosterone but the 200m is fine is totally illogical.

That being said it was right to not let her compete in the 800. It absolutely not fair to the other women. There is an understanding that world-class athletes are genetic freaks to begin with but there is a separation of men and women categories for a reason. Suddenly the line between women in men in society has gotten more fluid, for some. But in sports, if we are not willing to draw a clear line of what the criteria is to compete in the women's category then the only answer is to abolish the category. The accommodation of a few individuals could destroy the competition for 99.999% of women. One problem with what World Athletics presented is the rules they have created did not define definitively enough this category going forward. There are going to be more issues coming.

That being said I think it was right for CAS to rule the way they did even if the case presented was not perfect. There are other women competitors who are impacted by this decision. To say, well world athletics which is a minor sports league didn't make a good case, sorry ladies we're going to punish you because your sports governing body is incompetent, would have been wrong. So in the end I think justice was served. This never would have become a big issue if Caster did not litigate the situation. I do not think she handled it classily, she repeatedly said things like this was all nonsense and played the victim. I got the feeling she cared less about women's rights and more about the greater good of Caster Semenya.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I read it here it the translation for those who did not, "I don't wan't to express my real opinions because if I do I'm afraid I will be canceled."

I agree with the notion that the case presented by World Athletics was not great. One of the issues to me was it only covered certain events. Last time I check men are faster across the board than women so why a rule that prevents her from competing in the 800m without suppressing testosterone but the 200m is fine is totally illogical.

It might be illogical but logic has no role in court cases like this. They had evidence to ban 400-1500m. They didn't have it for other events. It would have weakened their case (which wasn't great to begin with) to add in things without scientific support.

And while their case is weak, lets be clear that getting a really good case isn't easy and to some extent is a matter of opinion. There will also be some one close to the line and people will have differing opinions about what side they are on.

Here is the thing. She shouldn’t be forced to suppress her hormones. I think that is just wrong. It is pretty much the opposite of why doping shouldn’t be allowed in sports. You shouldn’t be allowed OR required to take drugs to compete. It should be against wada code to even take drugs that suppress hormones. That should be the end of it.

That said I also don’t think she should be allowed to complete in the women’s category. You have to draw a line between the open category and the women’s category and it can’t be based on gender identity. At a high level and even at a high school level, as we have seen, it is too easy to be taken advantage of.

You want to rename the categories, fine. Call them open and biologically disadvantaged. The protected category for women exists for a reason and it isn’t because they want to dress different or other stereotypical gender reasons. It is 100% about biological performance disadvantages.

Who is this Epstein guy, other than someone who believes in a "gene" that makes you good at sports - but hasn't said which one yet?

Does he do anything athletic himself? Is he good at sports?

Caster just had a BABY with his wife.

How is this even up for debate? Caster is welcome to identify as a women.

But is NOT a women when it comes down to biology, learned about this in 5th grade. This is a simple issue that has become too politicized for Caster, the officials deciding, and the women he competes against. Caster has a condition known as gender dysphoria. With this disorder, one’s brain does not identify as a male OR female. It’s a real disorder with real repercussions for pretending like it is not a mental issue.

Only Caster knows deep within whether she's really got that special running talent/gene/gift or that she's got a biological advantage whenever she flies through that finish line every time. she will know . If its the later and yet she wants to keep on abusing the unfair advantage she got and keep winning, no matter how unfair it might be to ban her , its much more unfair to the other million females if we don't confront reality.

I'm way more interested in hearing about the experience of the multiple women athletes who lost out on championship medals, qualifications, and opportunities than one (or 3) particular individuals who have had careers they didn't deserve.

Hopefully that is what history will recall about this ridiculous debacle, all g with how crazy people were back in these days.

ahmally wrote:

Caster just had a BABY with his wife.

How is this even up for debate? Caster is welcome to identify as a women.

But is NOT a women when it comes down to biology, learned about this in 5th grade. This is a simple issue that has become too politicized for Caster, the officials deciding, and the women he competes against. Caster has a condition known as gender dysphoria. With this disorder, one’s brain does not identify as a male OR female. It’s a real disorder with real repercussions for pretending like it is not a mental issue.

I knew there would be an illiterate response in the first page of this thread, Let's run never lets me down!

Imagine an intersex athlete significantly more talented than Semenya who could run world class male times. It's obvious that there needs to be a way to keep such intersex competitors out of women's sport. At the same time, the current CAS ruling that seems to target Semenya specifically (applying a max T level to her condition and only to the events she is world class at) sets no meaningful precedent. I think athletic bodies need to do their homework and decide where to draw fair lines between men's and women's sport and at this point I think Semenya has been on the scene long enough that she should be grandfathered in.

Vancomycin wrote:

Read fully before commenting:

He has some very good points about the flimsy approach to her case and how it differs from other gender issues in sport. The IAAF simply failed to produce a report with sound enough data to support they forced medical interventions. This is unforgivable especially as there initial approach to the situation in 2008/2009 was unfathomably despicable - the burden is on them to demonstrate 1) the need for such policy 2) approach the issue with fairness and humanity. They have failed.

To participate in this thread. You may not mention 1) chromosomes/karyotype 2) anatomical differences 3) your condescending view on prescriptive sexual binary. While such discussions might be worthwhile in other contexts, they have no bearing on the CAS decision regarding the Semenya case.

Both of his "expert" friends seem to agree that it is unfair for an untreated Semenya to compete against women -- Ross just thinks that IAAF performed the wrong science.

This is curable.

No one, to my knowledge, has offered a solution that is both fair to Semenya, and to her competitors.

Epstein calls it a trolley problem: the IAAF had a choice: either run over 1 athlete, or the rest to save the one. Ross seems to agree with the decision to pull the lever, but argues that the IAAF built the wrong lever.

Probably one of the most legendary scientists ever, I think Spock said it best just before he died: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one."

Agree with the first point 3hr. Disagree with the second. How would you feel lining up in an olympic final or world champs next to an athlete like Semenya? We shouldn't wait for fairness. She has already had a stint in the limelight, that's fine, but we need real rules now. Every event, not just 400-1500. Why they came up with that is beyond me.

I speculate that the difficulty for Caster is at least partly to give up her self image as a world champion and some kind of chosen one. "Supernatural" as she says. I don't think she has to stop calling herself supernatural, or being an inspirational sports figure. Just to accept that bring supernatural means it isn't appropriate to run in the womens category. There is a dignified way out. She should found a supernatural meet. I would watch. Make it acceptable to be different.