The End Of Women's Sports As We Know It? Is Caster Semenya The Favorite For Gold For The 2016 Olympics?

LetsRun.com wrote:

We break down the implications of the Court of Arbitration for Sport's decision to let Indian sprinter Dutee Chand compete as a woman and more importantly their decision to totally suspend the IAAF's hyperandrogenism regulations:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/07/the-end-of-womens-sports-as-we-know-it-is-caster-semenya-the-favorite-for-gold-for-the-2016-olympics-the-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-suspends-iaafs-hyperandrogenism-regulations/

As of Monday, people with internal testicles, can compete in track and field without treatment.

The simple answer is genetic testing. If someone has two X Chromosomes, they are a woman. If they have an X and a Y, they are a male. This is the only fair way to do it. Transgendered are still their original sex genetically so they can live how they want, they just can't compete in their chosen sex category.

It was a good article, which not only did not go overboard but probably missed one of the deleterious consequences of this PC-inspired ruling. Specifically, how will they police any athlete's testosterone levels now? Not only will biological females have to dope up heavily on testosterone to compete with the Casters but they'll be able to get away with it. The old ranges have been tossed out, ruled invalid. If no level is "unnatural," every competitor will have to raise their T to the max.

It's back to the future again for women's sports. Look for the return of hairy, square-jawed dopers with voices that sound like teenage boys.

In 2008 during the Caster debate, I actually heard two women in a coffee shop say all sex divisions in sports should be eliminated...they thought it was sexist? I was literally dumfounded and had to interupt their conversation.

The two ladies looked and sounded like they were somewhat highly educated but more frightening was they seemed to actually believe that men and women are born with equal physical traits. My jaw is still on that floor.

They thought I was crazy when I tried to explain height to strength ratio, etc. and point out the obvious performance standards of which they knew nothing. i was shocked. I told them the world they envisioned was their nightmare. That meant no women EVER making a final of anything. The disagreed... I got my coffee and walked out realizing that the world of sport is apparently a mystery to many well educated people. It was frightening.

My 6 year old son asked me, why a man was running in a race with women, when I was watching Caster back in 08. I am glad I had a witness as we were both astonished that my son would say something out loud, with no prior knowledge, that everyone else pretended didn't exist.

Now I guess India can finally make a semifinal of something in Rio?

This ruling actually seems to undermine trans women who have been competing in sports. Prior to this ruling, male to female transsexuals had a strict set of standards that they had to meet in order to compete in the women's category, including 2 years on hormone replacement therapy, hormone levels in the normal female range, and sexual reassignment surgery.If these rules apply to woman identified people who were born male, why do they not also apply to woman identified people who are born intersex?

LetsRun.com wrote:

As of Monday, people with internal testicles, can compete in track and field without treatment.

I will from here on refer to such athletes as people with "Hybrid Engines".

aed939 wrote:.

I think the final solution will be a simple, two-step process that goes like this:

Step 1: simple genetic test for the presence of a Y chromosome. No Y chromosome, the person is female, and she can compete in the female class, not subject to any endogenous testosterone limits.

Step 2: genetic males (with a Y chromosome) that wish to compete in the female class are subject to the female upper normal limit for testosterone.

I agree with this, although these tests will have to coexist with current drug testing for PEDs. I have a question for those who know more about the science behind testing: would further development and refinement of the "biological passport" work effectively for the above 2 step test (preventing double X chromosomes from altering their testosterone while claiming they were born that way), while at the same time also identifying more clearly when XY athletes were doping?

And yes, I know that some athletes/coaches will always be trying to figure out some way to defeat any testing system.

After all, an airtight system would remove the thrill that some get from posting "they're all dopers" on every Let's Run thread, although posters now will have an additional enjoyment, adding to any discussion of women's races that "they all have internal testicles."

Which, conveniently has the initials "HE".

Semenya is a young girl who is being vilified because she's ugly. Leave her alone.

Incidentally, Renee Richards competed in women's tennis in the late 70s despite being born male. Her highest ever ranking was 20th.

Hi Flo Jo!

UCLA communications dept wrote:

1. Thank you Letsrun.com for bringing us up to speed on the CAS decision.

2. Your opinion on the matter means nothing. Are you an expert? Just report the facts, please.

3. When reporting the facts, please seek out an expert for clarification and comment, rather than just another "journalist" you know.

Good day.

1) Epstein is regarded as an expert on the matter.

2) I spoke to others off the record.

3) Our opinion does matter. The political correctness of this decision could very well end women's sports as know it. One expert has even encouraged us to start an online movement. Be respectful of the athletes in question but start a grass roots movement to let CAS know that they have made a dreadful mistake."

Our benevolent leader, since the dawn of man, the test for whether or not someone was a man or a woman was dependent upon the outward presence of obvious physical parts. It is likely that many olympians who competed as females in the past were hyperandrogenous, there was just no test for that at the time. So, since previous records championships, etc. may have been set or won by women who were hyper androgenous, I do not see a big deal in allowing someone who is competing as god made them as a big deal using the age old standard of what outward physical parts are present. I do have a problem with forcing someone to undergo hormone therapy in order to compete, and in no way should any man who is undergoing hormone therapy be allowed to compete as a woman (ie Bruce Jenner should not be allowed to compete as a woman in the heptathlon as it would be attune to doping). It is interesting to think about how many of the historic great female athletes of the past may not pass the gender test today.

Not equal wrote:

Okay, so they do that. No more gender divisions. No woman will ever win a medal again. You do realize that their are high school boys who could run faster than many professional women right? Grant Fisher could probably smoke Dibaba in a 1500. He is a college freshman, she is currently the worlds best female distance runner.

If the Olympics/WCs were set up this way you would see feminists whining that they are oppressed by not having a separate division and that it isn't equal that males always stomp them, every time.

If you were talking about combat sports where people can do physical damage to each other (maybe not so much in sports like low contact karate) then having divisions based on sex is justifiable for health and safety reasons.

But sports like track and field are about self improvement more than anything - the Olympics especially are about the taking part and not the winning (most olympians never win any medal and they do not complain). So any protesting feminists would not really have any valid point, in fact the sport would be totally non sexist in that it would not be discriminating against any sex or intersex or transgenders. Most fields of professional work are like this today anyway so the sport would also be aligning itself with the cotemporary world which would be another positive development.

Lowering the qualifying standards so more people can compete is a good way of giving all the sexes an equal chance of competing but there would have to be more qualifying rounds before the final is reached. This would also be a positive development in that major track and field events would become more of a festival over several weeks like a soccer world cup. The marathon would just have a larger field (also positive for the sport) - no qualifying rounds needed.

Then how do you approach selecting players to an Olympic Team under the terms you are suggesting? Eliminate all women's team competition and double the amount of players on these new unisex teams to include women? Implement mandatory playing time rules so men and women have equal time on the field?

And by the way, if you lower the qualifying times to allow women to compete in these new unisex Olympics, you are also going to add a lot more men to the equation. The current entry standard for the women's 100 meters is 11.32. Could you imagine how long the first round of that event would take if we allowed every human being who could run 11.32 or faster into the Olympic 100? How about the 1500, where the current standard for women is 4:06?

And none of that matters anyway, as countries are allowed only 3 competitors in each event. For the most part, women would just be eliminated during their countries trials if they were forced to qualify against men, and we would see a mostly male Olympics. If you are suggesting there be no trials and just lowered standards for qualifying, then the amount of competitors would be unmanageable. How many men can run 4:06 for a 1500?

I've lived too long wrote:

I know you're trolling but some people actually think that.

You act like this is a crazy idea, but it's not. Sex-segregated athletics is inherently discriminatory because it forces people into a binary division between "male" and "female," when the real world is not so simple and binary. There should be a single open category in which everyone competes, based purely on merit and not sexual discrimination.

A single open category would treat everyone equally and fairly. As the US Supreme Court said when ending racially segregated schools, "separate but equal" is inherently unequal. It might make it more difficult for some "women" (as currently categorized) to be successful, but segregation to give an advantage to some athletes only perpetuates sexist stereotypes about "women" being weaker, slower, etc. than "men." This would also solve all of the Title IX issues by having single unsegregated teams for each sport.

Sex segregation in athletics is the last bastion of discrimination. No one would ever advocate segregated "Black Olympics" and "White Olympics" even though it could be justified just as easily as a sex-segregated Olympics. For instance, if you look at sprinting, whites are plainly at a genetic disadvantage. It has been decades since a white person medaled in the 100m and that was only because the US boycott of the Moscow games let a doping white Brit win. But no one would suggest racially segregating the sprints (or the NBA, or other events/sports where blacks dominate) to give white people a better chance. The situation with the sexes is no different.

The CAS decision will be looked back on as the death knell of an inherently discriminatory system and the beginning of a new movement for a single, equal and unsegregated athletics.

We should use Cristopher Walken's standard to determine whether or not someone is a woman:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykPW_g3ZUds

Go to 10:20

caesarsghost wrote:

It was a good article, which not only did not go overboard but probably missed one of the deleterious consequences of this PC-inspired ruling. Specifically, how will they police any athlete's testosterone levels now? Not only will biological females have to dope up heavily on testosterone to compete with the Casters but they'll be able to get away with it. The old ranges have been tossed out, ruled invalid. If no level is "unnatural," every competitor will have to raise their T to the max.

It's back to the future again for women's sports. Look for the return of hairy, square-jawed dopers with voices that sound like teenage boys.

I had this question myself. I think the ruling intends to maintain the screening T:E ratio for "normal" women but throw it out (or at least the absolute T level limit) for women like Dutee Chand/ Caster Semenya who naturally have high testosterone levels and confirmed presence of internal testes. (If Chand tested positive for stanozolol she'd still be kicked out for doping.)

I'm not sure how this will effect doping tests in practice. When a women exceeds the allowable T:E level, will they/ do they automatically run the more sophisticated tests used to detect synthetic testosterone directly?

Will all women who exceed normal T range be given a chance to demonstrate that the elevated testosterone levels are caused by internal testes, etc.?

1.) Just like drug-testing has become mandatory if you want your results to count, so too will be chromosomal testing (whether you have a Y or not).

2.) I think this will make the Diamond League and other non-WC meets matter more, at least for women. Just as certain Diamond League meetings did not invite Justin Gatlin, they could choose not to invite Caster Semenya or Dutee Chand. Justin has a past (and present?) of documented PED-usage, which is an unfair chemical advantage. Caster and Dutee have a documented history of having an unfair chemical advantage (hyperandrogenism, at the very least). So just don't invite 'em, and the de facto World Championships would be Monaco, Zurich, or Brussels.

3.) LetsRun, please help me out with something as well: Why must the IAAF abide by the CAS ruling? Was a treaty giving them power coincidentally signed by every IAAF-member nation? Did the IAAF voluntarily decide it would always abide by the CAS? Does membership in the IAAF necessitate that each member athletics federation abide by CAS' decision?

Ya know, doping is now so pervasive I don't think this matters at all. 'Normal' women stand zero chance of reaching the very top anyway.

[quote]my 3 cents wrote:

1.) Just like drug-testing has become mandatory if you want your results to count, so too will be chromosomal testing (whether you have a Y or not).

Chromosome testing was thrown out years ago because they found a number of XY women competing who had normal female anatomy and normal female hormone levels who had been declared female at birth. The existence of the Y chromosome does not make one's performance as an athlete increase unless of course one has testes and produces higher levels of testosterone (as is the case with Chand and Semanya)

Prior to this ruling the IAAF required that in order to compete as a woman, one mast have female anatomy and testosterone levels in the normal female range. Actually, the permissible range is much higher than the normal female range,(1.5 to 3.5 being considered normal and below 10 in order to compete as female) which means that Chand and Semanya's testosterone levels are in the low end of the normal male range. Previously, the only people allowed to compete in the female category were women who were born with 100 percent female anatomy and a small minority of people who now had female anatomy and hormone levels in the female range by undergoing surgery and/or hormone therapy (i.e. people like Semanya and a handful of male to female transsexuals).

Essentially, by allowing intersex athletes like Chand with high T levels to compete as a woman, there is nothing preventing anyone who self identifies as a woman to compete in the female category.