Caster Semenya Loses Appeal

Wild Thaaaang wrote:

The last Women’s Olympic 800m first 3 finishers had Y chromosomes!

Would you mind citing your sources for this information? We haven't even seen the sex test results of Caster Semenya to know that she is XX or XY. My guess is she's XX, which is why IAAF resorted to using testosterone as a new way to categorize sex.

site your source wrote:

Wild Thaaaang wrote:

The last Women’s Olympic 800m first 3 finishers had Y chromosomes!

Would you mind citing your sources for this information? We haven't even seen the sex test results of Caster Semenya to know that she is XX or XY. My guess is she's XX, which is why IAAF resorted to using testosterone as a new way to categorize sex.

Nevermind, I just read this.

Of the top 10 800m women of last year, only one could be described as white (sort of white, the Morroccon Arafi, she would pass for me but I am not sure about a white supremacy racist would say). The first white woman in the more strict (European ancestry) sense, was Muir on #15.

So the 800m are not going to become more white. This a ridiculous claim and tries to smear one side in a controversial issue as racist.

Nevermind, I just read this.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

Wow, that kind of buries this thread, doesn't it? Good write-up.

ANC wrote:

Nevermind, I just read this.

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

Wow, that kind of buries this thread, doesn't it? Good write-up.

Hardly. You still have an otherwise healthy person who wants to compete in sport and has been told she is not allowed to compete in sport because of the way she was born. Whether or not she has a fundamental human right to compete is, to me, the ultimate question, and I do not know the solution to that.

We separate athletes by sex based on lines that were once thought to be obvious. Those lines are clearly no longer sufficient to cover all athletes who wish to compete. A gray area exists. Instead of addressing the existence of said gray area, the IAAF's solution is to pretend like it doesn't exist and insist that she must belong on one side of the line or the other.

site your source wrote:

Would you mind citing your sources for this information? We haven't even seen the sex test results of Caster Semenya to know that she is XX or XY. My guess is she's XX, which is why IAAF resorted to using testosterone as a new way to categorize sex.

She is not XX. She is XY. The reporting on this has been so bad by the linkes of the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc that I have written a column clearing up 3 common misconceptions about Semenya.

Racket wrote:

ANC wrote:

Wow, that kind of buries this thread, doesn't it? Good write-up.

Hardly. You still have an otherwise healthy person who wants to compete in sport and has been told she is not allowed to compete in sport because of the way she was born. Whether or not she has a fundamental human right to compete is, to me, the ultimate question, and I do not know the solution to that.

We separate athletes by sex based on lines that were once thought to be obvious. Those lines are clearly no longer sufficient to cover all athletes who wish to compete. A gray area exists. Instead of addressing the existence of said gray area, the IAAF's solution is to pretend like it doesn't exist and insist that she must belong on one side of the line or the other.

agree. I like the open vs low testosterone/xx idea. men's division no longer men's division. open division. We just let go of the idea that hyperandrogynous women are super talented. Or give them their own category. hard to find enough competitors but whatever. It's weird because it's not a disability but it does remind me of Paralympics because it is breaking people down in to categories specific to their bodies in order to get a good contest.

Caster Defender wrote:

Sprintgeezer wrote:

“Caster Semenya Loses Appeal”

—As though he ever had any.

Caster Semenya is not a man, and it is hateful and ignorant to say so. Caster Semenya is a woman with different hormone levels. She is a woman who does not conform to your standards of beauty, who looks different from the women you are used to seeing. That does not give you the right to be a bully.

It’s a woman with XY chromosomes and internal testis. This is not a matter of beauty or not. The Y chromosome defines what? I’ll let you google it so you can process it.

Rojo, I've been a fan of how this site has covered the Semenya issue for some time but your latest article is a bit embarrassing. It's like you forgot everything we've learned over the last 5 years. Karyotype is NOT the sole predictor of phenotypic sex - if it was we wouldn't have this issue. It's easy to karyotype people. (I've said this 500 times on LRC by now) Ross Tucker said it best yesterday: "Why? Because being “male” is a natural genetic advantage! It may be the greatest of them all! If you have the Y chromosome, and the testes, and the testosterone, and you can use the testosterone, then you have a huge advantage compared to a woman who has all the same other attributes, but not those." and "A 46XY DSD is not necessarily biologically male – this, indeed, is a point of debate in this issue. They DO lie on a spectrum, and since I’m interested in performance, you can pin that performance advantage of having a condition causing a 46 XY DSD on a spectrum of 0% to say, 12% (the full male advantage). But at this point, knowing where to drop that pin is the problem." You REALLY should read his take if you haven't. It covers a lot of scientific issues that LRC seems to now willingly ignore. The chromosome issue is a moot point. There have been XY humans competing and living as women for a loooong time and no one cared. You need to produce the T and respond to the T to have masculine benefits. Here is Tucker's article again:https://sportsscientists.com/2019/05/on-dsds-the-theory-of-testosterone-performance-the-cas-ruling-on-caster-semenya/

rojo wrote:

She is not XX. She is XY. The reporting on this has been so bad by the linkes of the BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc that I have written a column clearing up 3 common misconceptions about Semenya.

/

mikephelps wrote:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58933253_2684858741555290_274416343988568064_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=02ed225301915e85987d818f598fce39&oe=5D73E951

You missed the point, answer me the question, what does XY chromosome means? What does the Y do? What happens when a person is XY Dsd? Sorry to break the bad news here, but what most are missing here is trying to make the playing field leveled and fair for the average woman in general, not just Caster. We want to sacrifice the entire field of athletes so we can benefit only one? Is this is what is about? There is a solution for the unfortunate XY dsd “female” athletes with no ovaries or uterus. Create an open division. I am not here to play political correctness as most here do, not my game because it puts emotions first, common sense and facts second.

Agreed

“need to produce the T and respond to the T to have masculine benefits.”

Like Caster almost does, eclipsing the maximum normal T levels for any average female competitor? Yes we get that. The problem is , what to do? I will take my chances and then allow normal females competing against Caster to boost up their T levels instead. I mean, the option medically lowering Caster’s level is maybe worse than having her competition juice up. If that levels the playing field against her, then allow the exception.

Most people don't seem to get this - they just see the XY and freak out. Yes Caster has high levels. But where do we draw the limit - see Tucker's arguments. I don't think "average female competitor" is a good metric. 5 nmol/L seems solid based on current evidence, but hopefully IAAF will go out and get usable data. I think we will see more T doping now that this is the standard, are T values included in bio-passport? Excuse my ignorance.

doctorj wrote:

“need to produce the T and respond to the T to have masculine benefits.”

Like Caster almost does, eclipsing the maximum normal T levels for any average female competitor? Yes we get that. The problem is , what to do? I will take my chances and then allow normal females competing against Caster to boost up their T levels instead. I mean, the option medically lowering Caster’s level is maybe worse than having her competition juice up. If that levels the playing field against her, then allow the exception.

mikephelps wrote:

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/58933253_2684858741555290_274416343988568064_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=02ed225301915e85987d818f598fce39&oe=5D73E951

Disingenuous untruth.

The quote is not what the court ruled, and the analogy is meaningless because the two situations are not the same.

Racket wrote:

ANC wrote:

Wow, that kind of buries this thread, doesn't it? Good write-up.

You still have an otherwise healthy person who wants to compete in sport and has been told she is not allowed to compete in sport because of the way she was born..

Disingenuous untruth.

That is not what Semenya has been told.

Vancomycin wrote:

"A 46XY DSD is not necessarily biologically male... You need to produce the T and respond to the T to have masculine benefits.

Red herring. Biological male is not the issue.

Semenya has been producing and responding to T for his entire life.

Clearly, given all of the drama with doping and now the gender problem, we need to start looking differently at what defines, "meaning" to us in a world that is not what we thought is was 100 years ago. Why someone who wins the 1500 m while sliding under pseudo anti doping regulations our champion while an athlete with DSD competing in the gender she was assigned at birth cause for explosion? That's the reality we have right now. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think that you know who a true champion in track and field is today. It is with this perspective that I would approach significant reforms. Our competitions should be looking for sportsmanship and finding authentic champions in all of its diversity and right now we're very far away from that.

from those at country club ... wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Slippery slope fallacy.

You responded x 2 to my post under different handles. I know when you do that.

Nope. Fortunately many people are able to identify your slippery slope fallacies.

Funny you would accuse me of that since you're posting anonymously under all sorts of handles in this thread.