Well, what do you expect? Letsrun has a history of supporting drug cheats as well as drug cheat apologists, so here again they are in favor of meds to level the playing field.
Well, what do you expect? Letsrun has a history of supporting drug cheats as well as drug cheat apologists, so here again they are in favor of meds to level the playing field.
Those who argue that the issue is "complex" are obscuring the fact that for the overwhelming number of men and women it isn't. For them, neither their sex or their gender is an issue. This debate is being driven by the rare exceptions. The argument that T-levels are an inadequate means of defining sex or gender miss the point - quite deliberately - by shifting the goal posts. It is not an argument about what constitutes a biological female but recognition that testosterone dramatically changes the ball-park of female competition (whatever the self-declared scientists here argue to the contrary). The issue is about sporting fairness, it is not an exhaustive scientific investigation into the wider question of what defines sex differences. It is an intended practical solution to a problem. But because the solution is rejected by some with an agenda that is wider than sporting fairness the debate quickly becomes what it always has been; a political contest that is irreconcilable, because their respective positions are irreconcilable.
When you are dealing with elite sport you have to careful define these rules and differences. For 99.999% of population it doesn't matter who they are racing against or what their testosterone is. We are discussing the impact on world-class athletics. These people are already huge outliers. Every woman in an Olympic is a rare exception, each with their own inborn and trained advantages. These policies are specifically for keeping things fair for the rare exceptions (sub 2:00 800m runners, etc.) At least think a little before you chime in with inane BS that has been spouted for 5+ years on these boards.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Those who argue that the issue is "complex" are obscuring the fact that for the overwhelming number of men and women it isn't. For them, neither their sex or their gender is an issue. This debate is being driven by the rare exceptions. The argument that T-levels are an inadequate means of defining sex or gender miss the point - quite deliberately - by shifting the goal posts. It is not an argument about what constitutes a biological female but recognition that testosterone dramatically changes the ball-park of female competition (whatever the self-declared scientists here argue to the contrary). The issue is about sporting fairness, it is not an exhaustive scientific investigation into the wider question of what defines sex differences. It is an intended practical solution to a problem. But because the solution is rejected by some with an agenda that is wider than sporting fairness the debate quickly becomes what it always has been; a political contest that is irreconcilable, because their respective positions are irreconcilable.
Star wrote:
I also think the XY should be the defining factor in determining who cannot compete as a woman.
If an XY person doesn’t respond testosterone too bad.
I agree it’s the same as being less talented.
Testosterone levels seem an odd standard because they can be changed with drugs.
Correct me if I’m wrong, you can’t change your chromosomes with any drugs or surgery.
It’s crazy to instruct someone to have hormone therapy to compete.
The default should always be that an athlete must compete against men if their sex is not clear. That does not preclude them from the opportunity to compete.
But an athletes who takes testosterone should not be allowed to compete if they can’t pass PED tests.
So the question would be under what situation would you demand proof of chromosomes.
Maybe it’s like a challenge flag in football. Throw the red flag if a she you think is a he wins.
That’s similar to current drug testing for PEDs. Most people do not go through drug testing but still race.
Well said.
Chromosome testing is no more invasive nor expensive than testing for PEDs, especially if it's only done once.
1700:1 says it all
Vancomycin wrote:
When you are dealing with elite sport you have to careful define these rules and differences. For 99.999% of population it doesn't matter who they are racing against or what their testosterone is.
We are discussing the impact on world-class athletics. These people are already huge outliers. Every woman in an Olympic is a rare exception, each with their own inborn and trained advantages. These policies are specifically for keeping things fair for the rare exceptions (sub 2:00 800m runners, etc.)
At least think a little before you chime in with inane BS that has been spouted for 5+ years on these boards.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Those who argue that the issue is "complex" are obscuring the fact that for the overwhelming number of men and women it isn't. For them, neither their sex or their gender is an issue. This debate is being driven by the rare exceptions. The argument that T-levels are an inadequate means of defining sex or gender miss the point - quite deliberately - by shifting the goal posts. It is not an argument about what constitutes a biological female but recognition that testosterone dramatically changes the ball-park of female competition (whatever the self-declared scientists here argue to the contrary). The issue is about sporting fairness, it is not an exhaustive scientific investigation into the wider question of what defines sex differences. It is an intended practical solution to a problem. But because the solution is rejected by some with an agenda that is wider than sporting fairness the debate quickly becomes what it always has been; a political contest that is irreconcilable, because their respective positions are irreconcilable.
None of these huge "outliers" you refer to have levels of testosterone above the characteristic female levels - and nothing like male levels. Unless they are like Semenya. So your argument that it is merely another form of exceptional capacity or talent that is being penalised is merely an attempt to move the goal-post by redefining "outlier". As a male entering female competition, I, too, would be an outlier, by that super-stretched definition. And there are some now doing exactly that. You might want to try thinking it through a little further yourself.
So you're just trolling now. Multiple have mentioned how chromosomal composition testing will not work for many reasons. You realize Caster Semenya is unconfirmed as XY or XX. She could very well be XX all the articles posted have mentioned this. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX_testicular_disorders_of_sex_development. Bring yourself up to speed - you're continually embarrassing yourself.
dunes runner wrote:
Well said.
Chromosome testing is no more invasive nor expensive than testing for PEDs, especially if it's only done once.
You are arbitrarily choosing testosterone as metric for determining unacceptable outliers. There are XX humans that make testosterone, there are XY humans that do not. Yes it is likely that testosterone is the primary driving force in male athletic superiority, but the IAAF wanted to prove this. Their study failed to do this (see previous two pages of posts), however they apparently have new data - we will see. If the IAAF cannot show that increased T in women leads to better performances, why should T be used the differentiation metric. Just like we cannot arbitrarily ban people we think are doping, we cannot exclude exceptional athletes for unverified metrics. Anyway I feel like I am talking to a bunch of brick walls; it's been fun.
Armstronglivs wrote:
None of these huge "outliers" you refer to have levels of testosterone above the characteristic female levels - and nothing like male levels. Unless they are like Semenya. So your argument that it is merely another form of exceptional capacity or talent that is being penalised is merely an attempt to move the goal-post by redefining "outlier". As a male entering female competition, I, too, would be an outlier, by that super-stretched definition. And there are some now doing exactly that. You might want to try thinking it through a little further yourself.
Vancomycin wrote:
So you're just trolling now. Multiple have mentioned how chromosomal composition testing will not work for many reasons. You realize Caster Semenya is unconfirmed as XY or XX. She could very well be XX all the articles posted have mentioned this. See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/46,XX_testicular_disorders_of_sex_development.
Bring yourself up to speed - you're continually embarrassing yourself.
dunes runner wrote:
Well said.
Chromosome testing is no more invasive nor expensive than testing for PEDs, especially if it's only done once.
So trolling is an opinion that you don't find acceptable. How to also move the free-speech goalposts to suit.
I expressed a view about addressing T-levels in women's competition as a measure to level the playground, but gave no opinion on what Semenya's chromosomes are or on the subject of chromosomal testing. As hard as it may be for you to grasp, not all arguments you disagree with are the same.
I did however say the debate is more political than scientific, and that you conveniently prove.
Wasn't responding to you there. For your argument I object to 1) the naive categorization of T as the defining feature in sex performance differences. 2) the idea that because most people can be easily classed as male or female makes this problem "simple." I agree that T can be a measure to qualify for the women's category. However, we need better evidence before we enforce it. Data collected across multiple studies so far have not found T levels predictive for female performance. We will see what new data the IAAF has. I suspect the CAS will uphold the T limit; for the time being it likely the best option we have.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So trolling is an opinion that you don't find acceptable. How to also move the free-speech goalposts to suit.
I expressed a view about addressing T-levels in women's competition as a measure to level the playground, but gave no opinion on what Semenya's chromosomes are or on the subject of chromosomal testing. As hard as it may be for you to grasp, not all arguments you disagree with are the same.
I did however say the debate is more political than scientific, and that you conveniently prove.
Vancomycin wrote:
You are arbitrarily choosing testosterone as metric for determining unacceptable outliers. There are XX humans that make testosterone, there are XY humans that do not. Yes it is likely that testosterone is the primary driving force in male athletic superiority, but the IAAF wanted to prove this. Their study failed to do this (see previous two pages of posts), however they apparently have new data - we will see. If the IAAF cannot show that increased T in women leads to better performances, why should T be used the differentiation metric. Just like we cannot arbitrarily ban people we think are doping, we cannot exclude exceptional athletes for unverified metrics.
Anyway I feel like I am talking to a bunch of brick walls; it's been fun.
Armstronglivs wrote:
None of these huge "outliers" you refer to have levels of testosterone above the characteristic female levels - and nothing like male levels. Unless they are like Semenya. So your argument that it is merely another form of exceptional capacity or talent that is being penalised is merely an attempt to move the goal-post by redefining "outlier". As a male entering female competition, I, too, would be an outlier, by that super-stretched definition. And there are some now doing exactly that. You might want to try thinking it through a little further yourself.
If testosterone is not a primary driver in athletic performance, then why was it that Semenya's performances fell away dramatically when she was previously compelled to take hormone suppressants? Indeed, if testosterone is not the key factor in differentiating performances at this level, why would Semenya be battling so hard in the courts for the right to preserve her natural levels? And why would you even care, if the IAAF research doesn't "prove" it? It's sounding very much like the argument that "doping doesn't really work" - so let's allow it.
Vancomycin wrote:
So you're just trolling now. Multiple have mentioned how chromosomal composition testing will not work for many reasons. You realize Caster Semenya is unconfirmed as XY or XX. She could very well be XX all the articles posted have mentioned this.
Finally, someone gets it!
Please note that you will find differing information about 46, XX DSD. The Wikipedia page states: "Affected children are typically raised as males and are likely to have a male gender identity." This statement is not necessarily true and certainly differs by culture. Ironically, the "treatment" to make one more male, should they choose that route, is to administer testosterone to induce male sex characteristics . Without such treatment, one develops female characteristics because they are in fact, genetically female.
Assuming you believe that Semenya is 46, XX DSD, and her parents decided to not intervene and raise her as she was genetically born, why should she be punished for NOT taking testosterone to become more male?
Oh, the irony of her being forced to take drugs to lower her testosterone because she didn't take testosterone as a child to become more male. Imagine had she done so and tried to become a world class runner. People with 46, XX DSD that opt to live as males require a lifetime of hormone treatments and testosterone to artificially combat their genetic disposition to femininity. Imagine what WADA would do with that situation, I imagine getting TUE for perpetual testosterone infusions would be problematic.
Ain't that a kick in the head.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If testosterone is not a primary driver in athletic performance, then why was it that Semenya's performances fell away dramatically when she was previously compelled to take hormone suppressants?
Because if indeed she is 46, XX DSD, her natural state is testosterone deprived, not testosterone rich. I know it's hard for you to wrap your head around this concept but that's the way the disorder works. Her body wants to be male, but it isn't and cannot be without the introduction of testosterone. If you further depress her testosterone the effects can be exponential.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Indeed, if testosterone is not the key factor in differentiating performances at this level, why would Semenya be battling so hard in the courts for the right to preserve her natural levels?
She isn't battling to preserve her levels, she is battling to be treated like a human being and not a lab rat. Administering hormones and depressing testosterone in a person with her condition is untested, unnecessary and unethical.
Vancomycin wrote:
you're continually embarrassing yourself.
It's like discussing basic math with a pig, because the pig has no idea what I'm talking about.
Dr Taboo wrote:
Her body wants to be male.
She isn't battling to preserve her levels, she is battling to be treated like a human being and not a lab rat. Administering hormones and depressing testosterone in a person with her condition is untested, unnecessary and unethical.
Finally someone gets it.
I totally agree that Semenya and other non XX and/or DSD people
should simply not be allowed to compete with XX / non DSD women people.
Dr Taboo wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If testosterone is not a primary driver in athletic performance, then why was it that Semenya's performances fell away dramatically when she was previously compelled to take hormone suppressants?
Because if indeed she is 46, XX DSD, her natural state is testosterone deprived, not testosterone rich. I know it's hard for you to wrap your head around this concept but that's the way the disorder works. Her body wants to be male, but it isn't and cannot be without the introduction of testosterone. If you further depress her testosterone the effects can be exponential.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Indeed, if testosterone is not the key factor in differentiating performances at this level, why would Semenya be battling so hard in the courts for the right to preserve her natural levels?
She isn't battling to preserve her levels, she is battling to be treated like a human being and not a lab rat. Administering hormones and depressing testosterone in a person with her condition is untested, unnecessary and unethical.
If she is naturally testosterone-deprived, as you suggest, then she would be boosting those levels - which is what dopers do. She isn't. She wouldn't be objecting to taking hormone-suppressants unless she was naturally producing high levels of testosterone. She isn't arguing for the right to boost her testosterone levels. Your arguments are fallacious.
The issue is solely one of what enables fairness in a restricted area of competition; it is maintained that fairness cannot exist without including restrictions on certain biological advantages that are not possible for those who generally fall within that category. That you reduce this to emotionally labelling some competitors as being treated as "lab rats" shows only how weak the argument against restriction has become.
Armstronglivs wrote:
If she is naturally testosterone-deprived, as you suggest, then she would be boosting those levels - which is what dopers do. She isn't. She wouldn't be objecting to taking hormone-suppressants unless she was naturally producing high levels of testosterone. She isn't arguing for the right to boost her testosterone levels. Your arguments are fallacious.
No, you are just incapable of understanding complex medical issues. The disorder is one of testosterone deficiency and if "untreated," 46,XX DSD experience the consequences of that deficiency. She is not producing high levels of testosterone, she is producing insufficient levels of testosterone to develop into a male. If you really want to understand the disorder, you should research it instead of making idiotic statements about topics you clearly don't understand. I would not even know where to begin explaining it to you, it would be like trying to teach calculus a to a dog.
Start here is you are truly interested in the complex issues that surround this disorder.
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/95/10/4501/2835100I apologize for the thumbnail above. I did not know that is what the thumbnail would be for the article.
Great! so how do test for that... with testosterone tests! Not genetic tests like you've been spouting off about all day. Thanks for finally agreeing with me - glad you caught up.
dunes runner wrote:
I totally agree that Semenya and other non XX and/or DSD people
should simply not be allowed to compete with XX / non DSD women people.
Dr Taboo wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
If she is naturally testosterone-deprived, as you suggest, then she would be boosting those levels - which is what dopers do. She isn't. She wouldn't be objecting to taking hormone-suppressants unless she was naturally producing high levels of testosterone. She isn't arguing for the right to boost her testosterone levels. Your arguments are fallacious.
No, you are just incapable of understanding complex medical issues. The disorder is one of testosterone deficiency and if "untreated," 46,XX DSD experience the consequences of that deficiency. She is not producing high levels of testosterone, she is producing insufficient levels of testosterone to develop into a male. If you really want to understand the disorder, you should research it instead of making idiotic statements about topics you clearly don't understand. I would not even know where to begin explaining it to you, it would be like trying to teach calculus a to a dog.
Start here is you are truly interested in the complex issues that surround this disorder.
Whether you think she is developing "insufficient levels of testosterone to develop into a male" is completely beside the point; she is not intending to become male; despite her so-called deficiency she produces way more testosterone than her female competitors - and it is that which gives her such an advantage, that she wishes to preserve, and the IAAF seeks to address.