A unique perspective on Caster Semenya and women's sports

Those storylines - even the annoying ones - are just that storylines. In other words... those inspirational stories are about how sport is covered. And in that perspective, I think the woman referred to by the OP is right. Those perspectives are well received by women. We want to hear the human-interest background packages before and after competition.

But the event is still a COMPETITION... and we're grappling with whether this is an unfair advantage, or just another expression of the variance of the species. In the vein of whether being tall and willowy an unfair High Jump advantage, or being stocky and fast an unfair advantage to men wanting to be NFL linemen.

So I don't buy it. Overcoming adversity - wherever that adversity originates from - shouldn't be a factor in competition.

That is ridiculous. Semenya, like any man, should not allowed to compete against women.

Armstronglivs wrote:

No wrote:

Women's sports most definitely IS a worse version of men's sports but we all can still enjoy competition as long as it's fair.

By the same token, men's running is a worse version of horse-racing. I don't know why we bother to watch men race when animals do it so much faster.

or cars and I'm sorry but watching cars circle a track is less interesting than watching grass grow.

In all seriousness, the original post is an interesting take on the topic on women's athletics, that the drama in women's sports comes primarily from the personalities rather than from the performances. I don't agree, though. I think that the drama always comes from a blend of interest in the competitive outcome and in the identities of the participants. If either of these elements is absent, it's boring. As examples of where one of the other of these elements were lacking, there was a stretch where Mo Farah's 5/10k dominance was too predictable to be entertaining and conversely there is the typical situation in the Dubai marathon which often sees an unknown (to me at least) runner win in a fast time.

Semenya's role in all of this? Some find her personal story compelling while others view her as the villain. and she's identifiable, all of which is great because she gives the casual fan someone to root for or against. Fairness aside, I see her presence as being good for the sport. She's perhaps a little too dominant though: when she's no medically limited, she's unbeatable without looking like she's trying which can get boring.

Do women value "story" over money?

How much does Semenya earn as a famous, fast woman?

How much has she prevented other fast women from earning?

guy with a female friend wrote:

"sports with boobs", t

That's precisely why women's T&F is so much better than mens.

Quigley, Infeld, Sisson over any men.

This is an interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.

duh2 wrote:

[quote]woman here wrote:

It's just humans running which is wonderful and doesn't need to be complicated with postmodern claptrap.

Agreed. So why complicate the sport with having gender (or age) categories? There is no logical reason to do so.

So basically, "your competitive friend" believes that women's athletics are a sideshow, not a sport, that need stories and antics to make up for some perceived shortcoming?

Shame on her, but I get it in 2018. She can't speak out against Semenya because it would make her a social pariah, and she(or elite level women) can't compete with Semenya, who is basically a dude with boobs.

Armstronglivs wrote:

duh2 wrote:

Exactly. The OP's message is patronising bullsht. Maybe women's races should be held on a pink track, with supporters allowed to hug runners on the way round while gushing on ig about their inspiring stories. Bllcks. And women's running isn't a "worse version" of men's either, it's its own thing and just as good to watch, for the same reasons. Grit, talent, hard work, tactics - men's and women's races don't differ in those things. It's just humans running which is wonderful and doesn't need to be complicated with postmodern claptrap.

Yup

Ditto.

I would have to agree with the others saying that the "stories/personalities" are what make women's sports different. That perspective is sexist. Women are told to smile more, be positive, happy and when they become hard working, focused, competitive, they're no longer liked. Why? Because we have this idea that women shouldn't be that, that they need to be mild mannered, calm, etc. Women should not have to have a certain personality or influential/positive story in order to stand out. We can stand out because of our personal accomplishments and the hard work and sacrifices that we put into those accomplishments. The story/personality thing takes away from our hard work.

I'm not a fan of Semenya competing in women's sports because it is a rare and extreme biological advantage that she has over other competitors. It's very clear why she's so much better than other women and while I'm not sure of the solution, I don't see it as fair competition.

You're arguing a strawman, and a faily obvious one -- to admit that women are slower than men DOES NOT require admitting that they are less intelligent or less mentally apt for a Nobel prize.

I’d separate out sports spectating, in which there may be differences in why they watch, and who they root for vs. competing at high levels.

I value Semenayas story of overcoming obstacles. I’m less sure how I feel in terms of how she dominates competition that is impacted in part by testosterone

Hi guys. I like Caster. I think she is inspiring. I think basically no one on this board (not even Jamin, Rojo, or Coevett) knows what it is like to be spoken about so hatefully by people who have never met you and have no real basis for judging your character (although I think Coevett is a meanie). I know many of you discriminate against her on what you perceive to be a scientific basis... but as I have said before: no one on this board has access to her medical information. Obviously the IAAF and CAS have access to information we don't, and based on that information they feel it is unfair for DSD athletes to compete against "real" women, but I don't find this compelling.

Caster was born with breasts and a vagina. She is not transgender. She has higher testosterone levels than many, many of her competitors. But I believe this is probably the case with *many* women. And anyone who asserts that she has internal testes may or may not be wrong, but until any one of you who references that anatomy provides actual medical evidence, this is really just an unjustified claim. I think if Caster raced in a sports bra and something shorter than half-tights she would receive less hate, and y'all would notice her masculinity a little bit less. I am not denying that she would still be very masculine, and with a chemical advantage, but I do think Caster is the victim of prejudice. I think the black women who have higher testosterone levels are demonized and called out for it more often, although there are others I can think of.

Brittney Reese, Allyson Felix, Shaunae Miller, and Dafne Schippers all seem to me like runners who have pretty high levels of testosterone that actually manifest in their appearances, although not to the extent that Caster's levels might affect her appearance and voice. However - and this is something I think about a lot - I think even Sydney's 400H PR is basically as impressive or more impressive than Caster's 800 PR. I know I'd be far more impressed with a teammate of mine running 52 than 1:54, but my thought is basically: how does someone like Sydney (who is not DSD or have a physical appearance that would imply a testosterone advantage) NOT have extremely high levels of testosterone compared to some of the women around her. Obviously there are genetic factors, biomechanical advantages one is born with, but I do feel like there must be many women who are so quick and strong (for instance, Ivana Spanovic - another gorgeous lady) that they are rocking with levels of testosterone (especially if everyone on this board is quick to assert that this particular developmental difference is amongst the most significant factor in determining performances.

In general, if Caster were running 1:49, I might agree that she is too advantaged by her physical composition. However, at the pace she has been running, I think she is great for track and field, and especially women's track and field. Sure - you have ladies like that woman from Poland who claimed she was the white champion, but if you look at the women's 800 and the improvements that new and veteran performers have been making in it, I think it really is fair to say that Caster is pushing the standard. It makes me sad to think that will change. Just some food for thought, but I wish people would be more accepting and less constrained by societal constructs of men and women are. Sure, Caster might be in part a "mutant" in some biological sense of the word, but so are people who have blue eyes, ginger hair, or walk on two legs instead of four. She has the support of her country, and of many fans around the world. It is definitely not as clear cut of an issue as many of you make it out to be.

JumpsDoctor wrote:

Hi guys. I like Caster. I think she is inspiring.

To be the only impressive thing about Semenya is her ability to ignore criticism (a lot of it warranted.)

It's as impressive as a convicted paedophile working as a teacher, and managing to ignore all the anger and protests from the parents and local community.

The funny thing about the testosterone thing is that she's still allowed to have a level of T that falls within the normal range for men (and still be a massive outlier in terms of women.) But even with this huge advantage, she can't run anywhere near 2 minutes for 800. She needs to have a high T level even for men to beat the women. That's the level of talent we're talking here.

trollism wrote:

JumpsDoctor wrote:

Hi guys. I like Caster. I think she is inspiring.

To be the only impressive thing about Semenya is her ability to ignore criticism (a lot of it warranted.)

It's as impressive as a convicted paedophile working as a teacher, and managing to ignore all the anger and protests from the parents and local community.

The funny thing about the testosterone thing is that she's still allowed to have a level of T that falls within the normal range for men (and still be a massive outlier in terms of women.) But even with this huge advantage, she can't run anywhere near 2 minutes for 800. She needs to have a high T level even for men to beat the women. That's the level of talent we're talking here.

That's just like, your opinion, man!

The issue isn't whether Caster should be competing as a woman (she should), it's whether or not she should be required to take hormones that bring her into the same range as every other female competitor, which I'd argue is much closer definitionally to competing as a woman than what she's doing now. We've already seen this: when Caster, as an intersex individual, races with her inherently massive biological advantages medically unaddressed, she absolutely smashes every world-class female she comes across with no question as to the outcome. When she takes hormones and the playing field becomes more level, she is still world-class but isn't really a championship-calibre athlete.

The whole thing about stories and that being a fundamental difference between mens and womens sports is, respectfully, a load of hogwash in my opinion. I watch women race professionally for the same reason I do men, or collegiate athletes, or high schoolers. I've seen races between teenage girls that are near objectively more exciting and interesting than huge pro meets and it has nothing to do with some quaint story being attached to compensate. So what if Sarah Healy's comeback "from the depths of hell" a couple years back would be a mid-JV 4x4 split for a guy? It was a fantastic feat of sport, and that sort of thing can exist separately from qualifiers.

Honestly, I think the whole situation boils down to a misrepresentation and twisting of the issue. The question started as "Should Caster be able to compete as a woman with a huge, easily rectified hormonal advantage that destroys all semblance of competition?" and somehow eventually became just "Should Caster be able to compete as a woman?" To the second question, I'd say yes. Absolutely. To the first I'd say no. Why?

Because I said yes to the second.

The key point in my view is that unlike other world-ckass athletes, we've seen how Caster performs when her testosterone levels are brought back into the same range as her peers - she is still very good, but not destroying every challenger and rendering global championships basically predestined. Ajee Wilson has been a track prodigy her entire career, in the same vein as Allyson Felix, and she hasn't even really come close to beating Caster but for maybe one race. Think about how good Felix was in her prime, and imagine her getting absolutely handled in every championship in every style of race- this is essentially happening right now, and we can identify precisely why.

I disagree with her opinion "But for women's running to be its own thing, it needs to have this other dimension be as important as the running itself."

Women's running is its own thing without this other dimension.

I do not believe women's running personalities need to be covered in People magazine or on the Entertainment Tonight TV show for the sport to be its own thing.

Perhaps these other dimensions could make women's running somewhat more popular among those who do not care so much about the running in and of itself. But these dimensions are not needed.

Lets look at US football, regarded as the most popular sport in the USA. Coverage of football includes very, very little of these "other dimensions". There are few human interest stories, not many personality profiles, not many up close and personal segments associated with football coverage.

Football players who have enjoyed widespread positive media coverage and commercial marketability beyond the sport (Manning, Favre, OJ...) were successful because of their on the field exploits, and not so because of their personal interest stories.

Football is wildly popular despite the lack of the personal element. Most people know players more so by their numbers than their faces.

Granted, some people need to get to know the personalities in order to follow the sport, but personalities are not necessarily needed for a sport to become its own thing.