Hand her the gold medal now - Caster Semenya complete ridiculous 50.76/1:58.46 double in span of 50 minutes

Ah, I found the article here, but it still doesn't cite enough details from the 2011 study.http://socialdifference.columbia.edu/files/socialdiff/publications/Science%202015%20-%20Debating%20a%20T%20Sex%20Gap.pdfI found the 2011 study here, but I can't access pubmed until I have access to a university computer.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25137421Here is a key point from the 2011 study.

The 99th percentile for T concentration was calculated at 3.08 nmol/L, which is below the 10 nmol/L threshold used for competition eligibility of hyperandrogenic women with normal androgen sensitivity.

Semenya was rumored to be three times that level.

That is certainly very interesting.

That raises the question then, if there are so many intersex athletes already competing in female sports, where are they?

Why is there an issue surrounding Caster Semenya at all if we cannot see an unfair advantage from the intersex women already known to the sport? There has been no song and dance made about these women.

Maybe this is a complete non-issue.

If intersex women are already in the sport and nobody really knows about it, least not the viewer or competitors, then there isn't a problem? Caster Semenya has not done anything performance-wise to suggest she is not female or is at an extreme advantage, after all. And the intersex condition is rare enough that you would never have a significantly intersex field (being intersex doesn't just make you a great athlete like some seem to think, most elite women would out run/jump/throw men, you still need athletic talent and hard work).

I wonder if Caster looked like Genzebe Dibaba would anyone question her legitimacy to compete? Especially now since T levels have been ruled to be an ineffective way to determine unfair advantage.

Perhaps if you just look feminine you are ok as far as the media and therefore the IAAF are concerned.

It would be interesting to find out if these women with 'hormonal disorders' fill out the medal positions in each event or if they are also-rans.

fisky wrote:

Ah, I found the article here, but it still doesn't cite enough details from the 2011 study.

http://socialdifference.columbia.edu/files/socialdiff/publications/Science%202015%20-%20Debating%20a%20T%20Sex%20Gap.pdf

I found the 2011 study here, but I can't access pubmed until I have access to a university computer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25137421

Here is a key point from the 2011 study.

The 99th percentile for T concentration was calculated at 3.08 nmol/L, which is below the 10 nmol/L threshold used for competition eligibility of hyperandrogenic women with normal androgen sensitivity.

Semenya was rumored to be three times that level.

She was three times over, but is also by definition, insensitive. Free testosterone doesn't do anything until it binds to receptors.

This is the heart of the ruling by CAS. No evidence that the elevated natural T in women with AIS has the same effects as synthetic T injected into normal women.

Whether they are right or not, that is another matter.

If the IAAF cares they will put effort into doing the research to gain the evidence, if any.

Likelihood is they don't care and will just ignore 1 athlete out of thousands and spin this as a win for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. Far cheaper and has positive PR effects.

Especially after the criticism they received following their handling of the Semenya case and all these doping and corruption worries.

Metric Miler wrote:

I see absolutely no reason for you to refer to that woman as a 'he'.

Her village denoted her a her. She identifies as a her. Those are strong reasons that only a totally insensitive a**hole would ignore.

Whether the IAAF wants to let her compete as 'a her' is a separate question. Given that the IAAF routinely and systematically accepts bribes to allow top level athletes to compete while on powerful doping agents, I think asking the IAAF to manage almost any situation correctly - including one that is as politically and scientifically sensitive as this one - is foolish.

Looks like LetsRun - led by #BathroomBillRojo - is going to play this Semenya thing to the max. The NFL and NBA are hitting Georgia and North Carolina hard, but Rojo's "good for the sport" strategy is to point out that Semenya wears the pants in her family.

Metric Miler wrote:

Whether they are right or not, that is another matter.

If the IAAF cares they will put effort into doing the research to gain the evidence, if any.

Likelihood is they don't care and will just ignore 1 athlete out of thousands and spin this as a win for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. Far cheaper and has positive PR effects.

Especially after the criticism they received following their handling of the Semenya case and all these doping and corruption worries.

Haha, "positive PR effects" for "the IAAF". Mate, you're out of your depth, time to move on.

Depth Finder wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

Whether they are right or not, that is another matter.

If the IAAF cares they will put effort into doing the research to gain the evidence, if any.

Likelihood is they don't care and will just ignore 1 athlete out of thousands and spin this as a win for equal opportunity and anti-discrimination. Far cheaper and has positive PR effects.

Especially after the criticism they received following their handling of the Semenya case and all these doping and corruption worries.

Haha, "positive PR effects" for "the IAAF". Mate, you're out of your depth, time to move on.

I don't follow.

It would be a PR disaster for the IAAF to make a big deal out of pursuing this case all over again.

13.7% females with high T in 2000 study

1.8% females with high T in 2011 study with "intersex" females removed from data.

Now for the sake of argument; lets say we can conclude that 12% of elite female athletes can be classified as intersex. Meanwhile 1.7% is the highest number in the general population that I could find (per Brown U Professor of Biology and Gender Studies, Anne Fausto-Sterling). Which supposedly includes ALL types of intersex classes, not just ones as extreme as Caster. So, it appears that intersex athletes are much more prevalent in in the most competitive female athletic competition in the world than in the general pop. Yet you see no advantage?

Advantage = statistical advantage. For that reason it makes no difference if Caster as an individual has set world records or runs 2:10. Intersex athletes will have a performance distribution like any otherpopulation. Not all will be a world beater. We don't know the numbers so let's make some up. While it takes say a 4+SD outlier for a female to compete in the olympics, it might take a 3.5SD for an intersex athlete, or 3SD for intersex with Caster's specific condition. Similarly not every man can run a 2:00 800, but maybe 2% can (2SD). Truth is this information is impossible to come by. Good luck putting together a relevant sample size of intersex athletes all with the same condition. This is why whatever criteria we set will ALWAYS be some inference from other studies that are indirectly related.

The fact that you looked at those studies and automatically said, "hey maybe there is no advantage" tells me you are seeing what you want to see. I think deep down you think she has an advantage. But you're trying too hard to be the voice of reason, the neutral arbiter, the lone defender against the basement nazis. So much so that you are ignoring common sense and creating argument where there should be none. If I said water always flows downhill, your response would be "hey wait, maybe not always, we don't know the exact mechanism by which gravity works. We don't want to unnecessarily pigeonhole the water like that in case we find out some new info in the future."

The argument should be this:

1) Should we set criteria at all even though we have no clean cut scientific evidence to base it on.

My answer) Yes, the difference is too obvious. There is a performance benefit to at least some intersex conditions even though we cannot identify all mechanisms causing it.

2) What should the criteria be.

My Answer) I don't know, It will have to be inferred as best we can from other studies. But obviously it should be somewhere south of Caster Semenya.

summerRed wrote:

Her village denoted her a her. She identifies as a her. Those are strong reasons that only a totally insensitive a**hole would ignore.

Any rational person can see he's a he, and refer to him as a he.

If you call a potato a tomato, I'm still going to call it a potato.

Metric Miler wrote:

Depth Finder wrote:

Haha, "positive PR effects" for "the IAAF". Mate, you're out of your depth, time to move on.

I don't follow.

It would be a PR disaster for the IAAF to make a big deal out of pursuing this case all over again.

"I don't follow." - Mate, that's why you need to move on.

How can you hold certain female athletes to different standards when it comes to testosterone levels? I realize there is natural v. synthetic, but it still seems grossly unfair that one runner can have more than her competitors.

This is true, statistically there does seem to be an advantage. I never denied there is an advantage either, as you said, I have been neutral.

I think it is enjoyable and good to have at least somewhat intelligent discussion about interesting scientific and moral topics such as intersex women in sport. Maybe I like to offer the alternative viewpoint to stimulate conversation. Maybe that differs from the average LR poster who doesn't want to think beyond ideas that make them uncomfortable.

There are a wide spectrum of testosterone levels in males, if T is that much of an advantage then nobody cares about it in men's sport. If it transpires that statistically most elite men have naturally much higher than average T levels then would we say that is unfair? Or would it be chalked down to the other advantages those guys have such as their superior endurance, speed and lactic tolerance? Not to mention other genes these guys are supposed to possess that ordinary folk don't.

The point I tried to raise in that last post was that if being intersex is a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted, why are we only having this discussion about Semenya? She isn't an outlier as far as her performance is concerned.

And what's more, having 'hormonal disorders' as the researchers put it are not necessarily an unfair advantage, it depends where you draw the line and the conclusions you make.

Everyone states that Bolt's height makes him unbeatable (no real evidence but the same goes for Semenya). That isn't an advantage he has trained for. Is that unfair? This is why I said the size of the advantage has to be determined and then this has to be deemed fair or not. Bolt's height is clearly accepted as a fair advantage for whatever reason, there are no height categories in athletics as there are weight categories in some sports.

Maybe you are correct that exclusion would be for the greater good, so to speak, but it would be incredibly difficult for the IAAF to justify because of the aforementioned lack of evidence.

CAS would always overrule them.

Metric Miler wrote:

The point I tried to raise in that last post was that if being intersex is a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted

Huh, what are you on?. It isn't "a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted".

Huh... wrote:

Metric Miler wrote:

The point I tried to raise in that last post was that if being intersex is a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted

Huh, what are you on?. It isn't "a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted".

You need to read the thread. Another poster put up a study of elite female athletes where something like 12% had intersex conditions. Far higher than the % across females in the general population. But nobody says anything about all those other intersex athletes which is an interesting point.

Please just read all the recent posts before offering your opinion. It would be nice if your opinion was not just a dressed up insult also.

[quote]Metric Miler wrote:

Repeat - It isn't "a relatively common occurance in women's sport that is accepted".

Alright we will do a little math.

~12% of the 849 female elites tested at the 2011 WC had some form of intersex condition.

~0.12 x 849 = 101 women.

100 elite women at the world championships were intersex, but nobody watching could tell and there was no uproar.

1 2 3 green wrote:

13.7% females with high T in 2000 study

1.8% females with high T in 2011 study with "intersex" females removed from data.

Now for the sake of argument; lets say we can conclude that 12% of elite female athletes can be classified as intersex. Meanwhile 1.7% is the highest number in the general population that I could find (per Brown U Professor of Biology and Gender Studies, Anne Fausto-Sterling). Which supposedly includes ALL types of intersex classes, not just ones as extreme as Caster. So, it appears that intersex athletes are much more prevalent in in the most competitive female athletic competition in the world than in the general pop. Yet you see no advantage?

I saw this when I posted the numbers, but my post was getting to long so I didn't bring it up. 1 2 3 green is right. When a rare disorder is 140 times more prevalent in elite athletes than the general population, it's obvious that the condition conveys a performance advantage.

FYI, the 140 times more prevalent quote came from this paper.

"Serum androgen levels in elite female athletes."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25137421

"Prevalence of hyperandrogenic 46 XY DSD in our athletic population is approximately 7 per 1000, which is 140 times higher than expected in the general population."

Is this disorder only one form of intersex? Because obviously that figure is 0.7%, not 12%.