RE Semenya: Is LetsRun.com "continuing a dated, bigoted conversation about gender in sports."

rojo wrote:

Today I received an email from a female journalist whom I had a long conversation with a few weeks ago about the Caster Semenya situation.

Her email was one sentence long and was as follows;

"We're publishing an essay calling you out for continuing a dated, bigoted conversation about gender in sports. Any comment?"

During our talk on the phone, when I told her I very much believed Semenya should not be allowed to compete in the women's category without hormonal treatment, she got very upset. She said she didn't think I understood the ramifications of my bigoted views. She said people would die because of them. I told her I didn't understand how my views on Semenya competing in the Olympics had anything to do with the deaths of transgender/intesex people in a third world country and she replied that my bigoted views would result in transgender people being murdered in Texas.

I was at a loss for words. Even though this made no sense to me, I offered her a chance to present her viewpoints in an article or podcast on our website (she doesn't like me quoting Ross Tucker as he agrees with me and wants other science viewpoints presented- a name that came up was Sari Van Andrews) but she declined as she wrote, "My sense is that you don't really want to understand the issue at stake. I'm afraid I can't be of further assistance."

So that's the backstory. Below, is the reply I sent her to today's email.

Rojo wrote:

Yes. I care to comment.

1) Who is "We"?

2) Can I see what is being written about me so I can respond more accurately. It's hard to respond generically but I'll do my best in #3.

3) If believing that humans (whether intersex or transgender) that respond to testosterone shouldn't be allowed to compete in Olympic women's track and field with elevated testosterone levels is considered bigoted, then I'm proud to be considered a bigot. Such bigoted views are necessary to protect the future viability of women's sports.

The fact that Caitlyn Jenner was recently on the cover of Sports Illustrated shows that society has come a long way in support of transgender rights. People no longer have to accept the gender of their birth. If gender is now self-defined, as I take it you would argue it is, then it's foolish to say there shouldn't be a testosterone cap of some sort for women's athletics. One can only speculate as to how many women's gold medals an untreated Caitlyn Jenner would have won in 1976.

There is no human right to compete in Olympic track and field. If you want to compete at that level, everyone agrees to give up some rights and agree to certain rules - you have to agree to make your whereabouts known 24/7, you have to agree to blood and urine testing, you have to agree that only three people per country can compete in a certain event, etc. Requiring someone like Caster Semenya, who is XY, to reduce her testosterone so she can compete in the protected women's category isn't an inhumane burden. She can politely decline to do so and compete on an amateur level like most athletes across the globe or she could try to compete professionally in the men's category (which maybe should be redefined as the "open" category). Her human right to be an athlete isn't being denied - just her access to the protected category of professional women's athlete.

-Rojo

PS. Based on our phone conversation, you seem to think everyone has a human right to be in the Olympics. I disagree. 8 of the 9 fastest men in the world right now in the men's steeplechase are Kenyan. Only 3 of them will be in Rio. Are their human rights being violated by a "dated and bigoted" policy? Similarly, the top 7 fastest women in the world in the women's 100 hurdles are all American - yet only three of them will be in Rio.

I don't know how I'm being bigoted on this. I simply have a view point on thist hat she disagrees with. In my mind, I'm tyring to save women's sports.

Knowing that LetsRun.com is an influential voice,. I offered her a chance to present her side of the story. She declined. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

Rojo wrote:

Rojo wrote:

Yes. I care to comment.

1) Who is "We"?

2) Can I see what is being written about me so I can respond more accurately. It's hard to respond generically but I'll do my best in #3.

3) If believing that humans (whether intersex or transgender) that respond to testosterone shouldn't be allowed to compete in Olympic women's track and field with elevated testosterone levels is considered bigoted, then I'm proud to be considered a bigot. Such bigoted views are necessary to protect the future viability of women's sports.

The fact that Caitlyn Jenner was recently on the cover of Sports Illustrated shows that society has come a long way in support of transgender rights. People no longer have to accept the gender of their birth. If gender is now self-defined, as I take it you would argue it is, then it's foolish to say there shouldn't be a testosterone cap of some sort for women's athletics. One can only speculate as to how many women's gold medals an untreated Caitlyn Jenner would have won in 1976.

There is no human right to compete in Olympic track and field. If you want to compete at that level, everyone agrees to give up some rights and agree to certain rules - you have to agree to make your whereabouts known 24/7, you have to agree to blood and urine testing, you have to agree that only three people per country can compete in a certain event, etc. Requiring someone like Caster Semenya, who is XY, to reduce her testosterone so she can compete in the protected women's category isn't an inhumane burden. She can politely decline to do so and compete on an amateur level like most athletes across the globe or she could try to compete professionally in the men's category (which maybe should be redefined as the "open" category). Her human right to be an athlete isn't being denied - just her access to the protected category of professional women's athlete.

-Rojo

PS. Based on our phone conversation, you seem to think everyone has a human right to be in the Olympics. I disagree. 8 of the 9 fastest men in the world right now in the men's steeplechase are Kenyan. Only 3 of them will be in Rio. Are their human rights being violated by a "dated and bigoted" policy? Similarly, the top 7 fastest women in the world in the women's 100 hurdles are all American - yet only three of them will be in Rio.

I don't know how I'm being bigoted on this. I simply have a view point on thist hat she disagrees with. In my mind, I'm tyring to save women's sports.

Knowing that LetsRun.com is an influential voice,. I offered her a chance to present her side of the story. She declined. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

appleswan wrote:

Rojo wrote:

I don't know how I'm being bigoted on this. I simply have a view point on thist hat she disagrees with. In my mind, I'm tyring to save women's sports.

Knowing that LetsRun.com is an influential voice,. I offered her a chance to present her side of the story. She declined. Can someone explain to me what I'm missing?

This is the first time I've come across this thread and it completely baffles me. Hopefully some views have changed in the last four years. Surely everyone should have an opportunity to complete at the level they want? Excluding a percent of the population (however small) cannot ever be considered.

When people mention human rights in this context they mean nobody can demand you alter your body. Intersex and trans bodies mostly do not require continuous medication - this is just the way they are. Demanding T levels are dropped so they fit in with arbitrary IAAF rules is authoritarian beyond belief.

As for an 'open' category not everyone wants to 'out' themselves as trans every time they enter a completion. Imagine someone joining a team and wanting to be known as a woman and not wanting to share the fact they are trans. It would massively put them off becoming involved in track and field.

There's no protection of women's sport if some women such as Caster are excluded - it's the opposite clearly. Those making pseudo-feminist arguments amount this are just protecting 99% of women opposed to the 100% that real feminists should.