SEMENYA jogs 800m in 1:55

Alan Webb is a guy wrote:

Male runner Semenya's marriage to his long term girlfriend hasn't disrupted his plan to run as a man in the women's 800m in Rio. Interestingly, Semenya typically choose to wear traditional male clothing for the marriage, which is nothing unusual for a guy.

Not unusual for a lesiban either: See

I haven't run the math but there are enough suits in the photo to say that woman wearing suits at same sex weddings isn't remotely abnormal.

If it looks like a man, quacks like a man, walks like a man, runs like a man, marries like a man, it is a woman.

I'm looking forward to all the excuses you Iibtards will come up with when Caster ditches his drag and identifies as a man after his running career is over.

1. I have no idea who Ross Tucker is outside of this thread, but I still find it amazing that so many people are criticizing him as having an agenda to allow intersex men to take over women's sport when he is actively against Semenya competing against the women. Am I missing something?

To me, it's not the end result of Tucker's opinions, but his thought process in them that is alienating. He tries to square the circle by invoking T-levels (testosterone) in a scientific manner, but when in reality, IAAF rules only require "legal recognition" of someone being female, and upon that condition there emanates a constantly-moving target of "substantial performance advantage" that needs to be met for the CAS to OK any legally-female person from being restricted from competing as a woman.

So Tucker is really just trying to hack off a slice at the end of the sausage factory, making an ad hoc scientific argument about why a legal-female might be excluded without running afoul of Olympian principles regarding "human rights", but in my view that's just a recipe for interminable disputes, both from proper scientists, and "scientists" with a social agenda. Better for IAAF to just shut down the colloquial door now, and address the issue on the legal aspects (so CAS won't be mad), rather than just (try to) apply a "scientific" band-aid that the CAS preliminarily said was too shaky for proof.

What Tucker and the scientists don't really realize, is that it's a legal battle, and so needs to addressed that way. The IAAF should redraft what it means to be eligible in "women's" and "men's" competitions (and reconstitute the latter as an "open" division if necessary, again to please the lawyers), rather than wait 2 years for more evidence of T-level restrictions being "necessary and proportionate" on (one aspect of) the matter.

This is correct. Tucker as a scientist wants scientists to make the final decision on who is eligible. The CAS as lawyers/judges wants the legal profession to make it. Tha iAAF as a bureaucratic institution wants to preserve its right to make decisions (read: appease sponsors). Everyone has their own self-interest, particularly the media reporting on the subject.

See Me (3) Three wrote:

it's a legal battle, and so needs to addressed that way. The IAAF should redraft what it means to be eligible in "women's" and "men's" competitions (and reconstitute the latter as an "open" division if necessary, again to please the lawyers), rather than wait 2 years for more evidence of T-level restrictions being "necessary and proportionate" on (one aspect of) the matter.

Yes, they should do this and it would be a good solution to the problem.

I find myself agreeing with these last 2 opinions. For all of Ross Tucker's nuance about sex/gender, at the end of the day it's just not that relevant. A red herring, as one poster constantly points out. From the fairness aspect, only biology should matter in my opinion. So gender need not even be mentioned. But currently from the legal aspect, only female «status» matters. Which is a more and more a social question, rather than a biological one.

For all of Ross Tucker's nuance about sex/gender, at the end of the day it's just not that relevant. A red herring, as one poster constantly points out... gender need not even be mentioned.

Agreed. So if "gender" is not relevant, but yet he spends so many words in his "scientific" posts growling about it, why do you think that is? Is there an easy answer, besides a conspiracy theory?

I appreciate your thoughts. I waded in quickly and wasn't aware of the extreme tone of people's comments that you were trying to address. I admit I haven't seen the documentary you referenced and so know very little about her background. I can imagine it could make one more sympathetic to her situation as a person, though leaving unresolved the unjust scenario that her medical situation creates.

I also feel that if she puts herself forward to "play the hand she was dealt", any backlash she experiences will be because she chose to go into the arena.

Intergalactic wrote:

I made it through about 2/3 of this thread a few days ago and haven't finished it but might in the next day or two. For now, I just want to say thank you to Ross Tucker for providing some very reasonable opinions (as did several other people, but you put so much effort into explaining your position). I was flabbergasted by how many people seemed to think you were arguing that the current situation is ideal, which you clearly weren't.

Exactly.

In the main I agree with Ross Tuckers posts, however I take issue with two points for which I don’t see objective support and because they impact so much else around this debate and undermine pure science and logic.

The most obvious point arises due to the difference in meaning between gender and sex without examining how it affects peoples perceptions. As Caster self identifies as female and due to current social norms is allowed to act as female, Tucker points out that this does not mean Caster should be allowed to compete in a female only event, because this is (or should be) judged biologically by sex, while Casters choice (also due to upbringing etc) is based upon a different meaning of ‘female’. Since some people on this forum cannot apparently distinguish between the terms, its sure bet the subtlety will escape the great unwashed. It will probably also cause an issue with Caster and supporters, because identifying as female now means entry into things specified female only, like the womens 800m event. Identifying oneself as a specific gender does not provide a simple exit when confronted in this way, as one might do if we were asked to change clothes to compete in a different events. Sexual identity is socially indoctrinated from before awareness and then provides a social version of self awareness to imbed the false idea of self- willed autonomous individuals. This issue is caused by the moral assumption that it is OK for someone to self identify however they choose, because society gives them this ‘inalienable right’. But society is then unable to address the conflict arising in a situation when biological identity of female is demanded, opening the door for gendered females to operate as if they were biological females. Or because of judgements coming from people with a perspective that sex and gender are binary and interchangeable terms.

This conflict cannot be reconciled logically because humans, and most likely those who are intersex or transgender are unlikely to deny feelings in favour of hard logic, especially when the spoils are Olympic gold medals and a lifetime of gendered indoctrination.

The second point that arises from this is the fact that in this modern day of sexual equality, that we feel obliged to discriminate on the basis of sex instead of absolute merit. Issues with Caster and what race category is run, would be solved by having races that simply selected the fastest human 100m runner. Likewise with jumping, throwing and so on. Tucker notes that womens events are segregated and protected because testosterone gives men an insurmountable advantage, would eliminate most or all women from elite sport. Tuckers says this MUST exist but (unless I missed it) does not qualify why this is a moral imperative to protect inferior performance of specific categories. Younger, older, differently abled and women in general terms are all at a significant disadvantage when competing directly with open males, and somehow it is fair and correct to offer women only (of all these disadvantaged sections of society) equivalent status and sometimes remuneration to elite males but not offered to other sub categories. I have no wish to eliminate women from the Olympics on the basis of a single open events, just as I also support different age groups, categories for disabled athletes, but suggest there is no absolute and objective moral basis to do so and no justification to give equal reward for unequal performance. Female athletes and sportswomen are increasingly vocal over their ‘right’ to get equal reward and status as their male counterparts without needing to provide equal merit. Oddly this would be unthinkable in modern western business situations, but is OK to do in sport.

Ironically the protection offered to women is now being violated by athletes who are biologically classified as ‘more male’ than most of the female competitors, and only because this protected category exists are now able to take advantage and compete as elite athletes against other women. If there was only an open category, athletes like Caster would be irrelevant as would all women competitors, because as Tucker points out, no single womens record would even qualify for a mens Olympic event for track and field. Since the opinion of everyone on this forum will have no effect whatever on how sports categories are defined, and athletes rewarded, maybe we should try to suspend the moral assumptions at least until the facts have been established, but then maybe that’s whats makes us human.

Have you considered that sport exists as a way for men and women to put on public displays of athletic ability in order to attract high quality mates. Therefore when a masculinised women enters a women's event the anger directed at them is because they are, a. Preventing women from attracting mates by setting the standard of elite performance too high, and b. putting on masculinised displays of flexing which are clearly not intended to attract male mates but rather female mates, which goes against the whole point of the public display system we are living under.

No question that sports exists as a sexual selection mechanism, however also has many distortions. Female athletic celebrity is different to male, female celebrity different to male, which is why we see male celebrities attracting more groupies than female celebs attracting male groupies, in fact groupies are predominantly female for both male and female celebrities. However I don't see you that you can consider intersex athletic displays as somehow violating the natural order of competitive display. In the same way we see the modelling profession dominated by females as a mechanism to attract males. Here males make small inroads around the value of their appearance and alter the 'normal' dynamics. Good example of a blend is womens beach volleyball where the dress fashion alone attracts an audience separate to the athletic skill, something they knowing exploit.

RossTucker wrote:

YOU CAN HOLD THE POSITION THAT SEMENYA SHOULD COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO CALL HIM SHE.

FIFY

Everyone is by now familiar with women, inc self-Id women, wearing traditionally male clothes. No one really notices/cares.

But does Semenya actually identify as a woman for anything g other than sport, and all the trappings that come along with being a woman gold medalist?

Has Semenya given up identifying as a man? Or does Semenya just stay conveniently quiet (some would say calculatedly so) about that?