[quote]test2 wrote:You could create a basketball league with height classes but, once you do, you've got to keep the 6'6" guys out of the under 6-foot category no matter how much they beg and plead that their genetics aren't under their control[quote]
There actually is U6F Basketball:
http://www.foxsportspulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-8865-0-0-0
The comparison between weight classes in boxing or wrestling is even more compelling. Differences in weight definitely make a difference. It proves nothing for a 97kg guy to beat a 57kg guy in wrestling.
Sex differences between men and women are just as significant as the differences between weight classes. You can look at the 100m vs. 110m hurdles, hurdle/steeple barrier heights, field implement weights, etc. If men and women were meaningless categories you wouldn't have different hurdle heights, implement weights, etc.You can look at WR times, heights, and distances for men vs. women.
Once you have made this distinction between men's and women's track, you have to have a meaningful definition that separates eligibility for men's or women's.
The solution is defining men's track as "open," in which anyone can compete, and women's track, which has to have some bright-line test for eligibility like T levels. That stinks for Semenya, who is not good enough to be a pro in the "open" category, but a women's category without any meaningful definition is unfair to the much larger number of women without an intersex condition. Women's sports should be constructed to benefit the vast majority of women athletes and not the tiny number of women with intersex conditions.