SEMENYA jogs 800m in 1:55

---

Rato wrote:

Some good points, however if she is born with XX and a vagina then she is female and can compete here, end of story. Trying to artificially lower hormone levels to create a level playing field is a very slippery slope that we should not and have no right to go down. Should we start giving Bolt some neurotransmitter blockers to even up the 100m.

---

RossTucker wrote:

In the interests of trying to offer discussion and debate on this issue, an interview I did with Joanna Harper recently: http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

I think the fundamental issue is this:
We have a separate category for women because without it, no women would even make the Olympic Games (with the exception of equestrian). Most of the women's world records, even doped, lie outside the top 5000 times run by men. Radcliffe's marathon WR, for instance, is beaten by between 250 and 300 men per year. Without a women's category, elite sport would be exclusively male.

That premise hopefully agreed, we then see that the presence of the Y-chromosome is THE single greatest genetic "advantage" a person can have. That doesn't mean that all men outperform all women, but it means that for elite sport discussion, that Y-chromosome, and specifically the SRY gene on it, which directs the formation of testes and the production of Testosterone, is a key criteria on which to separate people into categories.

Now, for various biological reasons, and I'll follow the post above up with another on the specific science of this issue, sometimes that testosterone doesn't quite "do its job", and that is when we find ourselves dealing with an athlete like Semenya.

She is NOT a man. And it is enormously disrespectful to call her "it", or "he". Nor should any of your wrath or frustration be directed towards her. She's running per the rules that were changed by CAS, and it is they who should shoulder the responsibility for the mess that is the women's 800m.

So going back to the premise that women's sport is the PROTECTED category, and that this protection must exist because of the insurmountable and powerful effects of testosterone, my opinion on this is that it is fair and correct to set an upper limit for that testosterone, which is what the sport had before CAS did away with it.

The advantage enjoyed by a Semenya is not the same as the one enjoyed by say, Usain Bolt, or LeBron James, or Michael Phelps, because we don't compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber, or height, or foot size (pick your over simplification for performance here). So Semenya has a genetic advantage, by virtue of A) having a Y-chromosome and testes, and B) being unable to use that T and/or one of its derivatives enough to have developed fully male.

In that regard, if you approached it from the other direction, you could, relatively accurately, say that Semenya has a disadvantage compared to other males with XY and testosterone, because unlike them she cannot fully use T (and/or a derivative - depends on the exact condition).

however, as it stands, her "advantage" is seen and responded to, rather than the "disadvantage" and she competes as a woman. It means that she identifies as a woman, is female, but my contention and the thing that sport might have to address is whether someone who identifies as one gender is necessarily able to compete as that gender.

That's where the hyperandrogenic guidelines tried to find a compromise - they set what was a very generous upper limit of 10, which is much higher than most females, but alas, CAS in their wisdom decided to do away with it.

Semenya, and a few others, are now providing how ludicrous CAS' decision was.

One final point - there is a position here, made by a good few people who I really respect, which holds that Semenya and others did not choose this, they have not cheated, and it would be inhumane/unethical and violation of human rights to force upon someone a medical intervention that is not for health reasons, and to prevent them from participating in sport if they don't.

That's an argument I don't agree with, but I can see that people may hold, and are entitled to. It's not wrong, and it is possible to have two disagreeing positions without being wrong on either. What is wrong is to compare Semenya's advantage to Bolt's, or Phelps', because their genetic "luck" doesn't put them into a different category, and also, Semenya's "advantage" is actually a "disadvantage" to competing, as I said.

Final point, Semenya will run the 400 and 800 in Rio, and she will win both. It will cause a Sh!Tstorom of note, and I'm South African, so that will be a lot of fun (said nobody ever) and arguments. So this is a long post, sorry, and the article where I interview Harper is long, but really, this is going to be a big issue, and it pays to know a little before leaping into it! Besides, I thin kit's a really interesting subject.

Ross

---

---

---

The biological condition wrote:

---

dingle wrote:

Whose definition of male? Which one are you using? That's the whole point here. You think it is cut and dried and it's not.

---

The same biological definition as used by me in previous posts, and by many others on Letsrun, including Ross Tucker, who even disagrees with himself.

The definition that differentiates woman from men.

What people are in reality is what they are, not what they call themselves,
which may or might not be the same, though people can call themselves as they wish.

---

---

disrespectful and proud wrote:

---

RossTucker wrote:

Now, for the purposes of sport, you can make a very good argument (one that I believe and agree with) that she should not be allowed to compete against other women in sport's events in the current state, because of a set of rules that exists to ensure fairness.

Note that this does not make her any less a woman, because that is a gender definition and one that she is entitled to choose, not you.

---

It's the gender issues that drives this whole charade. And Ross has bought into the notion that gender has nothing to do with sex. He even says you're enormously disrespectful if you bring up the subject of gender. At the same time he doesn't shy away from arguing that many intersex athletes "are identified as female early, and self-identify that way too".

Why doesn't Ross advocate that only XX chromosome females are allowed in the female sports category? That would be a much clearer scientific division than all kinds of guesswork about testosterone levels and insensitivities. The reason he doesn't support this is of course that it doesn't pander to the GENDER issue agenda that we find elsewhere in society. The intersex athletes have strong backing from the LGBT movement and that's why we have these problems now.

CAS does not rule by strict physical/scientific criteria either. They look to gender issues as well. They want the sports categories to reflect what's common in society. And they could probably get in trouble if they deviate too much from national law, human rights, etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. But it's extremely hypocritical of Ross and others to label people "enormously disrespectful" for discussing the political agenda that has brought us here.

To me, Caster is a first and foremost a man. Just look at his wedding photos. For this important occasion of his life he dresses like a man. Despite this I wouldn't normally mind calling him "her", but when he exploits the system by identifying as a woman when he suits him, it's time to call out the cheats.

Better disrespectful than hypocrite.

---

---

rojo wrote:

---

disrespectful and proud wrote:

Why doesn't Ross advocate that only XX chromosome females are allowed in the female sports category?

---

You raise an interesting point.

Can someone tell me why this has become so 'complex' of an issue? Why isn't it that simple?

Are there large numbers of people that aren't xx or xy?

What am I missing?

---

---

markboen wrote:

I am not a fan of self-identification. I much more prefer biological identification. And when someone like Caster purposefully chooses to celebritize her identity, she loses a great deal of privacy and instead becomes a magnet for public scrutiny, just like any other celebrity.

In comparison with the average female world-class 800 meter racer, Caster is enjoying ginormous daily doses of testosterone (steroid hormone), which allows her to jog 800 meters in 1:55.

I am now leaning toward advocating that the biologically disadvantaged, e.g., hermaphrodites, transgenders, be allowed to participate in the Special Olympics and other Special Olympic events, and not against biological females. They can enjoy racing in their own specific division.

---

---

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

The CAS, IAAF, IOC...someone needs to get moving on this and do something.

This is seriously a spectacle for the wrong reasons and not good for the sport.

Apparently Semenya doesn't want this sort of attention, but she is willing to race into the Olympics virtually guaranteed a gold medal or two - who is advising her? She will have a spot light on her like never before. Why do it?

---

---

...and for all the people that fully fall into place as female/women or however you may want to label them....none can race for gold. It will be a race for silver. Dreams squashed.

I think of Canada's Melissa Bishop, on a royal tear as we speak, breaking her own national record, still a good two seconds behind Semenya's times. Not even in the same universe.

---

---

disrespectful and proud wrote:

---

RossTucker wrote:

Now, for the purposes of sport, you can make a very good argument (one that I believe and agree with) that she should not be allowed to compete against other women in sport's events in the current state, because of a set of rules that exists to ensure fairness.

Note that this does not make her any less a woman, because that is a gender definition and one that she is entitled to choose, not you.

---

It's the gender issues that drives this whole charade. And Ross has bought into the notion that gender has nothing to do with sex. He even says you're enormously disrespectful if you bring up the subject of gender. At the same time he doesn't shy away from arguing that many intersex athletes "are identified as female early, and self-identify that way too".

Why doesn't Ross advocate that only XX chromosome females are allowed in the female sports category? That would be a much clearer scientific division than all kinds of guesswork about testosterone levels and insensitivities. The reason he doesn't support this is of course that it doesn't pander to the GENDER issue agenda that we find elsewhere in society. The intersex athletes have strong backing from the LGBT movement and that's why we have these problems now.

CAS does not rule by strict physical/scientific criteria either. They look to gender issues as well. They want the sports categories to reflect what's common in society. And they could probably get in trouble if they deviate too much from national law, human rights, etc. There's nothing inherently wrong with this. But it's extremely hypocritical of Ross and others to label people "enormously disrespectful" for discussing the political agenda that has brought us here.

To me, Caster is a first and foremost a man. Just look at his wedding photos. For this important occasion of his life he dresses like a man. Despite this I wouldn't normally mind calling him "her", but when he exploits the system by identifying as a woman when he suits him, it's time to call out the cheats.

Better disrespectful than hypocrite.

---

---

markboen wrote:

I am now leaning toward advocating that the biologically disadvantaged, e.g., hermaphrodites, transgenders, be allowed to participate in the Special Olympics and other Special Olympic events, and not against biological females. They can enjoy racing in their own specific division.

---

---

dukeboss wrote:

Semenya is a freak of nature

---

---

RossTucker wrote:

A person can be genetically male, but anatomically female. They are then called intersex, and so cannot be described, biologically, as either male or female.

---

---

RossTucker wrote:

perhaps that is why it's important to respect a person's right to describe themselves as female, in a societal sense.

But please note, and i'm putting this is CAPS because it seems to have been missed:

YOU CAN HOLD THE POSITION THAT SEMENYA SHOULD NOT COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO CALL HER HE.

---

---

RossTucker wrote:

YOU CAN HOLD THE POSITION THAT SEMENYA SHOULD NOT COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO CALL HER HE.

---

---

Melt down in progress wrote:

---

RossTucker wrote:

perhaps that is why it's important to respect a person's right to describe themselves as female, in a societal sense.

But please note, and i'm putting this is CAPS because it seems to have been missed:

YOU CAN HOLD THE POSITION THAT SEMENYA SHOULD NOT COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO CALL HER HE.

---

You're being a hypocrite. If you have anything to do with South African Athletics, then no wonder the entire country is confused, but I am sincerely sad with the Apartheid oppression of women that continues, especially in your country, in part by your personal promotion and obfuscation of this issue.

This has been brought up on this forum several times and it is you who, apparently purposely, keeps missing the point.

1) No one is denying that Semenya or any other guy has the right to call himself a woman, a crow, a rock or anything else that he wants;

2) The rest of us, who don't live in your deluded little world, have the right to see the truth and express it, in particular seeing that Semenya is a man, expressing this fact, and therefore that he doesn't have the right to compete in women's events.

3) Your argument that he's not a "complete" man, whatever that is, and therefore is not a man, is ridiculous. Not everyone is the same, so the case could be made (especially in South Africa apparently) that no one is a man, and therefore don't call anyone a man, because it would "hurt their feelings."

---

---

RossTucker wrote:

In the interests of trying to offer discussion and debate on this issue, an interview I did with Joanna Harper recently: http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

I think the fundamental issue is this:
We have a separate category for women because without it, no women would even make the Olympic Games (with the exception of equestrian). Most of the women's world records, even doped, lie outside the top 5000 times run by men. Radcliffe's marathon WR, for instance, is beaten by between 250 and 300 men per year. Without a women's category, elite sport would be exclusively male.

That premise hopefully agreed, we then see that the presence of the Y-chromosome is THE single greatest genetic "advantage" a person can have. That doesn't mean that all men outperform all women, but it means that for elite sport discussion, that Y-chromosome, and specifically the SRY gene on it, which directs the formation of testes and the production of Testosterone, is a key criteria on which to separate people into categories.

Now, for various biological reasons, and I'll follow the post above up with another on the specific science of this issue, sometimes that testosterone doesn't quite "do its job", and that is when we find ourselves dealing with an athlete like Semenya.

She is NOT a man. And it is enormously disrespectful to call her "it", or "he". Nor should any of your wrath or frustration be directed towards her. She's running per the rules that were changed by CAS, and it is they who should shoulder the responsibility for the mess that is the women's 800m.

So going back to the premise that women's sport is the PROTECTED category, and that this protection must exist because of the insurmountable and powerful effects of testosterone, my opinion on this is that it is fair and correct to set an upper limit for that testosterone, which is what the sport had before CAS did away with it.

The advantage enjoyed by a Semenya is not the same as the one enjoyed by say, Usain Bolt, or LeBron James, or Michael Phelps, because we don't compete in categories of fast-twitch fiber, or height, or foot size (pick your over simplification for performance here). So Semenya has a genetic advantage, by virtue of A) having a Y-chromosome and testes, and B) being unable to use that T and/or one of its derivatives enough to have developed fully male.

In that regard, if you approached it from the other direction, you could, relatively accurately, say that Semenya has a disadvantage compared to other males with XY and testosterone, because unlike them she cannot fully use T (and/or a derivative - depends on the exact condition).

however, as it stands, her "advantage" is seen and responded to, rather than the "disadvantage" and she competes as a woman. It means that she identifies as a woman, is female, but my contention and the thing that sport might have to address is whether someone who identifies as one gender is necessarily able to compete as that gender.

That's where the hyperandrogenic guidelines tried to find a compromise - they set what was a very generous upper limit of 10, which is much higher than most females, but alas, CAS in their wisdom decided to do away with it.

Semenya, and a few others, are now providing how ludicrous CAS' decision was.

One final point - there is a position here, made by a good few people who I really respect, which holds that Semenya and others did not choose this, they have not cheated, and it would be inhumane/unethical and violation of human rights to force upon someone a medical intervention that is not for health reasons, and to prevent them from participating in sport if they don't.

That's an argument I don't agree with, but I can see that people may hold, and are entitled to. It's not wrong, and it is possible to have two disagreeing positions without being wrong on either. What is wrong is to compare Semenya's advantage to Bolt's, or Phelps', because their genetic "luck" doesn't put them into a different category, and also, Semenya's "advantage" is actually a "disadvantage" to competing, as I said.

Final point, Semenya will run the 400 and 800 in Rio, and she will win both. It will cause a Sh!Tstorom of note, and I'm South African, so that will be a lot of fun (said nobody ever) and arguments. So this is a long post, sorry, and the article where I interview Harper is long, but really, this is going to be a big issue, and it pays to know a little before leaping into it! Besides, I thin kit's a really interesting subject.

Ross

---

---

Red Herring wrote:

---

RossTucker wrote:

YOU CAN HOLD THE POSITION THAT SEMENYA SHOULD NOT COMPETE IN WOMEN'S SPORT WITHOUT HAVING TO CALL HER HE.

---

1) No you can't. You are purposely calling him a her, to perpetuate the issue, to gain notoriety for yourself, and to threaten the base of women's athletics;

2) Contrary to your assertion, calling him a her suggests that he is a woman, and therefore has the right to compete in women's events;

3) Semenya is not female, so it is wrong to insist to call him a her, and to insist to not call him a him. You're constantly contradicting yourself;

4) If your reasoning is that he can call himself what he wants, then there is no disagreement, which makes this especially strange that you keep bringing it up Mr. Red Herring;

5) He is not a female, was born a male, and has many male characteristics including genetics, so it is perfectly fine and logical to call him a male;

6) We have the right to call him what we wish, especially when what we call him is based on the reality of his genetics and the truth;

6) Semenya was not born a female, so it is not fine and okay to call him a she, her, female or a woman, and to do so is especially offensive to all women;

7) You are not discussing the issue in a reasonable manner, but are simply typing long paragraphs of senseless red herring material and trying to cloud the issue with mumbo jumbo and gobbledygook.

Please stop what you're doing, start standing up for real women, and help this issue come to a viable resolution for everyone, without impinging on the rights of women, especially in their competitive endeavors in athletics.

---