Those who are for whatever reason sore about the upholding of this decision are some of the most inarticulate and biased people I have yet encountered.
Certainly this case involves on some level an issue that is currently in vogue, namely gender—but the raising of the gender issue is only a consequence of the decision, and not related to the substance thereof.
T level was picked for legal reasons that derive from generally-respected principles of human rights and justice including rational relation to the objective, proportionality, etc. It is because of those principles that the condition was limited to distances for which those principles could be satisfied.
Male and female label issues only come into play because of the traditional labels applied to competitive categories. The labels are only descriptive, and in this situation have no further meaning.
Let’s assume arguendo that all athletes are, and always have been, clean, just to get a level picture. The interesting thing is that none of the best women’s category performances would be challenging WC or Oly qualifying marks for the men’s category.
Forget about obviously doped athletes for a moment, in the female category. The “best of the rest” female category performances are sometimes done by XY, XXY, whatever (non-XX) athletes. They are better than their clean competitors...but probably still not as good as those clean XY competitors competing in the men’s division.
Why is that? It is because they choose not to compete in the men’s category because they know they would not be competitive, and probably wouldn’t even make the cut. Understand that there are, and always have been, kids like this who HAVE competed in boys’ categories, but does anybody know of any who have gone on to compete at a higher level, say NCAA Div I or higher? I personally am unaware of any.
These are people who start out free to compete in either category, and who at some point are left with the female category as their only option at a high level—and that high level is what they want, because it comes with rewards like fame, travel, money, and privileges. At the time at which they find they are not or would not be competitive in the male category, they continue to compete in, or they switch to, the female category in order to ascend the levels of competition—rather than competing in the men’s category at a lower level, or even in mixed fields that happen often at the level of all-comer’s and masters meets.
And make no mistake, this is all about rewards—both personal and national. In that sense, an athlete like Semenya is no different from an athlete like Kratochvilova—not competitive in the men’s category, but clearly better than anybody else (except similar athletes) in the female category.
IMO if a person has developed as have, and continues to exhibit the same characteristics relevant to their chosen athletic endeavor as do, most athletes in the male category, they should be required to compete in that category—and that includes an un-modified Semenya. A package or the absence thereof is not a characteristic that is relevant to athletics endeavors, no matter what the reason for an athlete’s “package status”.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to change how a person has developed once they are an adult, so the only way to excuse an athlete from being required to compete in the men’s category is the second element, the characteristics relevant to the endeavor. T level is such a characteristic, is objective, and can easily be manipulated.
Because there are only two current categories, there is only one competitive category available after having been excused from the men’s category: women’s. Only time will tell if this is a fair and reasonable outcome, as we have yet to see the level of performance achieved by various modified athletes.
IMO a third competitive category should only be developed if the modified athletes prove to be the best, or consistently among the top, of the women’s category.
Side note: should doped women then be able to compete in the men’s category if they meet standard? That is, a true “open” category? Maybe, only if they stay within limits that apply to all competitors in that category. In that case doping by anybody would have to be allowed, up to a certain limit. Many have advocated for this exact outcome, but it makes competition unfair to those who have no access to supplementation, or for whom ot may prove harmful—the young, the poor, etc. At this point this is an academic discussion at the highest levels, because doped women’s performances are not (yet) on a par with men’s standards.
End rambling.
Caster Semenya Loses Appeal
Pro News/Info/Results
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
Consider that Semenya will be able to achieve through pharmacologic means a T level that is high for the “women’s” category.
What is now to stop others in that category, who may start out with a lower level of T, from arguing that they should be able to achieve an equivalent T level, also through pharmacologic means?
Wait for it, it will come, especially if Semenya modifies and continues to win. It will be framed as an equal treatment argument. -
Chaze wrote:
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.
Finally, someone who goes above and beyond.
Thank-you.
I ranted years ago about this very thing, on this board, it’s probably searchable. It was in the context of some douchebag having won something, and the concept of greatness.
But now that you have added your voice to the chorus of the aspirational, come down into the mudpit! -
You have shown absolute no evidence you’ve listen anyone on this thread. I’d say you are the most inarticulate person here. Which is fine. This is the internet. Stop using chromosomal evidence as evidence of sex. Read Ross Tucker’s article. Remember Ross Tucker was one of most outspoken against Semenya at the start - he’s not politically biased, a Nazi, whatever other objections you use to ignore learning.
Honestly I’m not even sure what you are arguing. You think all DSD women deep down know they are “cheating.” There’s no evidence for that.
I’ve repeatedly said I support the IAAF decision for the time being. I just know they will need more data for this to survive appeal.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Those who are for whatever reason sore about the upholding of this decision are some of the most inarticulate and biased people I have yet encountered.
Certainly this case involves on some level an issue that is currently in vogue, namely gender—but the raising of the gender issue is only a consequence of the decision, and not related to the substance thereof.
T level was picked for legal reasons that derive from generally-respected principles of human rights and justice including rational relation to the objective, proportionality, etc. It is because of those principles that the condition was limited to distances for which those principles could be satisfied.
Male and female label issues only come into play because of the traditional labels applied to competitive categories. The labels are only descriptive, and in this situation have no further meaning.
Let’s assume arguendo that all athletes are, and always have been, clean, just to get a level picture. The interesting thing is that none of the best women’s category performances would be challenging WC or Oly qualifying marks for the men’s category.
Forget about obviously doped athletes for a moment, in the female category. The “best of the rest” female category performances are sometimes done by XY, XXY, whatever (non-XX) athletes. They are better than their clean competitors...but probably still not as good as those clean XY competitors competing in the men’s division.
Why is that? It is because they choose not to compete in the men’s category because they know they would not be competitive, and probably wouldn’t even make the cut. Understand that there are, and always have been, kids like this who HAVE competed in boys’ categories, but does anybody know of any who have gone on to compete at a higher level, say NCAA Div I or higher? I personally am unaware of any.
These are people who start out free to compete in either category, and who at some point are left with the female category as their only option at a high level—and that high level is what they want, because it comes with rewards like fame, travel, money, and privileges. At the time at which they find they are not or would not be competitive in the male category, they continue to compete in, or they switch to, the female category in order to ascend the levels of competition—rather than competing in the men’s category at a lower level, or even in mixed fields that happen often at the level of all-comer’s and masters meets.
And make no mistake, this is all about rewards—both personal and national. In that sense, an athlete like Semenya is no different from an athlete like Kratochvilova—not competitive in the men’s category, but clearly better than anybody else (except similar athletes) in the female category.
IMO if a person has developed as have, and continues to exhibit the same characteristics relevant to their chosen athletic endeavor as do, most athletes in the male category, they should be required to compete in that category—and that includes an un-modified Semenya. A package or the absence thereof is not a characteristic that is relevant to athletics endeavors, no matter what the reason for an athlete’s “package status”.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to change how a person has developed once they are an adult, so the only way to excuse an athlete from being required to compete in the men’s category is the second element, the characteristics relevant to the endeavor. T level is such a characteristic, is objective, and can easily be manipulated.
Because there are only two current categories, there is only one competitive category available after having been excused from the men’s category: women’s. Only time will tell if this is a fair and reasonable outcome, as we have yet to see the level of performance achieved by various modified athletes.
IMO a third competitive category should only be developed if the modified athletes prove to be the best, or consistently among the top, of the women’s category.
Side note: should doped women then be able to compete in the men’s category if they meet standard? That is, a true “open” category? Maybe, only if they stay within limits that apply to all competitors in that category. In that case doping by anybody would have to be allowed, up to a certain limit. Many have advocated for this exact outcome, but it makes competition unfair to those who have no access to supplementation, or for whom ot may prove harmful—the young, the poor, etc. At this point this is an academic discussion at the highest levels, because doped women’s performances are not (yet) on a par with men’s standards.
End rambling. -
Vancomycin wrote:
You have shown absolute no evidence you’ve listen anyone on this thread. I’d say you are the most inarticulate person here. Which is fine. This is the internet. Stop using chromosomal evidence as evidence of sex. Read Ross Tucker’s article. Remember Ross Tucker was one of most outspoken against Semenya at the start - he’s not politically biased, a Nazi, whatever other objections you use to ignore learning.
Honestly I’m not even sure what you are arguing. You think all DSD women deep down know they are “cheating.” There’s no evidence for that.
I’ve repeatedly said I support the IAAF decision for the time being. I just know they will need more data for this to survive appeal.
[quote]Sprintgeezer wrote:
(Lots of words saying... who knows)
Indeed, the tucker article is quite good.
ref: https://sportsscientists.com/2019/05/on-dsds-the-theory-of-testosterone-performance-the-cas-ruling-on-caster-semenya/
I must admit, after sg declared he would quit using the insulting male pronoun, and then did not quit, I gave up on trying to read his ramblings. If someone could condense them and translate them into English, they may contain useful material. -
indeedso wrote:
I must admit, after sg declared he would quit using the insulting male pronoun, and then did not quit, I gave up on trying to read his ramblings. If someone could condense them and translate them into English, they may contain useful material.
Why is this a big deal for people? I wouldn't care if someone "misgendered" me. Why does it matter to anyone?
In my opinion Caster Semenya is a man. There is no person in the world who has an Y chromosome who should be entitled to be called a woman. I don't care what they call themselves or what their friends and family call them. But they will always be men. -
czxcz wrote:
indeedso wrote:
I must admit, after sg declared he would quit using the insulting male pronoun, and then did not quit, I gave up on trying to read his ramblings. If someone could condense them and translate them into English, they may contain useful material.
Why is this a big deal for people? I wouldn't care if someone "misgendered" me. Why does it matter to anyone?
In my opinion Caster Semenya is a man. There is no person in the world who has an Y chromosome who should be entitled to be called a woman. I don't care what they call themselves or what their friends and family call them. But they will always be men.
It isn't science that says Semenya is a woman; it is politics. -
Intentional misrepresentation. Again.
I said I would change if the Brojos mandated it. For now, I say—and I mean—HE.
And a big sieg heil! to Vancomycin. -
Thank Keyrist for bringing back sanity! We are talking about protecting the rights of intersex, which make up 0.018% of the population vs. protecting the rights of 100's of millions of women. It's upsetting for Caster and I have empathy for her, but it's the fair and right thing to do here! We must stop this wicked transgender movement and this is a step in the right direction. I do think the criteria for intersex and/or trans to compete should be even more stringent than just testosterone levels because there are other enormous and unfair benefits of being a man that testosterone helps to create. As this author says, the Y chromosome is the biggest marker for performance, so I personally think it should be high T plus a Y chromosome should eliminate intersex and trans from women's competitions. You have to think that not only do they unfairly win competitions, but they take the place of other women on the team. They destroy the dreams of these female athletes, so let's be sure to have them in our hearts as well.
-
I agree to some extent, especially when it comes to transgenders. I think in the case of intersex, it's a little more muddied as this person actually does have some female qualities, I'm guessing a vagina. I'd be really curious to understand how or who determined Caster's gender. Was it done at birth and solely based on her having a vagina (if that is the case) or was it more of a transgender type thing where she was classified as a male at birth, which she definitely should have been or was it more of something Caster determined on her own later in life. Know what I mean. If the latter, i.e. Caster self identified herself, then I would agree with you and use male pronouns to describe her, but if she was classified at birth as female and therefore, the parents raised her that way, then I would support her female pronouns. Just my opinion. Based on some of the things I have read about her and heard from her family, I do believe that she has a vagina and therefore, was classifieds as a female at birth, which is why I will support her female pronoun. But this begs the question or reasoning that we should have more rigorous testing by doctors to determine sex at birth, which I'm not sure is happening. Doctors should run a chromosome test and testosterone and check for male/female anatomy and then "coach" parents on how they should classify intersex babies. I'm sure that many/most people don't understand the impact of chromosomes, hormones, testes, etc. IDK??? Difficult situation, but regardless, Castor shows absolutely zero signs of being female to me and because of the T and the Y chromosome, she should never be allowed to compete against "pure" (for lack of a better word) women.
-
semenyagoat wrote:
The hostility towards Semenya is really big. She is the goat and logically slow americans are trying to attack here. Strangely they never wanted to check on lance Armstrong
What part? Since Lance-o didn't cheat and compete as a woman, I guess you are talking about the doping? Ironically, he was pursued by Americans who knew he was doping, but that doesn't keep your narrative going, does it? -
Jamin lost his appeal years ago.
-
Caster profited immensely, don’t feel sad for her wrote:
AdiosMom wrote:
Do you really need to take the piss like that? Pretty heavy handed.
Yeah, we're happy to see women's sport protected, but I really sympathies a lot with Caster, she's been put through a lot in the past ten years.
I really doubt this is the end of this issue, it's just getting started. There are still many aspects that need to be addressed.
Don’t feel too sad for Caster. She stayed in the game and profited handsomely at the expense of other women’s glory, fame and fortune.
I feel angry about the theft that has taken place. Put yourself in the shoes of the many women runners that have dedicated their lives to competing clean and at the highest level. For them to have put themselves on the line fully knowing the competition was rigged against them. Feel sad for them. They are the vast majority and they are the ones who have lost and suffered the most. Looking back at this period of women’s sport history is very very sad indeed.
She didn't commit a crime. -
czxcz wrote:
indeedso wrote:
I must admit, after sg declared he would quit using the insulting male pronoun, and then did not quit, I gave up on trying to read his ramblings. If someone could condense them and translate them into English, they may contain useful material.
Why is this a big deal for people? I wouldn't care if someone "misgendered" me. Why does it matter to anyone?
In my opinion Caster Semenya is a man. There is no person in the world who has an Y chromosome who should be entitled to be called a woman. I don't care what they call themselves or what their friends and family call them. But they will always be men.
To be fair 46,XY DSD with no SRY gene and complete AIS would more or less develop as a woman. Probably would never be an issue in sport as they wouldn't have such high T levels. It's the SRY gene on the Y chromosome that is the driving force behind people going through male puberty. -
Vancomycin wrote:
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.
I read Ross Tucker all the time.
I know that there are some women who are XY who don't respond to testosterone etc. I've spoken to one on the phone about this situation. That's not what we are talking about here and I didn't talk about it in my article as that would just confuse people. The point of article was to make this understandable to everyone who doesn't have a science degree.
XY, no womb, no ovaries, internal testicles.
Plus it's clear that Semenya does respond to testosterone. There are a number of XY women the IAAF has quietly had reduce their testosterone and they ended up sucking. Semenya also went through a down period.
If it wasn't going to impact her performance, she wouldn't be fighting it.
Next. -
rojo wrote:
Plus it's clear that Semenya does respond to testosterone.
How is it clear? -
rojo wrote:
I know that there are some women who are XY who don't respond to testosterone
First of all, anyone with a Y chromosome is not an XX non DSD female,
and it not possible to "know" that a person will not ever respond to testosterone.
In addition, whether a Y chromosome person responds to testosterone or not is not relevant,
because no Y chromosome people should ever be allowed to compete in XX non DSD female women's events. -
Racket wrote:
If someone is truly acting like a fool then there is nothing wrong with pointing out pollutant idiocy from them.
You're acting like a fool. -
I'm just not sure. There seems to be something wrong with penalizing someone for the way they were born. This is like putting a restrictor plate on a human being. We should NOT do that.
-
SteveJ34 wrote:
I'm just not sure. There seems to be something wrong with penalizing someone for the way they were born. This is like putting a restrictor plate on a human being. We should NOT do that.
You're making an argument for open sport, without category. But once you have categories - like gender, age, 'special' events, and grades of skill then you have necessary restrictions. That is sport. If DSD competitors like Semenya want to compete without conforming to stipulated criteria for women's sports then she and they can compete as males, because they also meet those criteria. But, then, they will not be so successful. And that is the issue at the core of her objection.
