Swyer wrote:

Looks like Semenya is female by definition of what 46 XY is-

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome

David S wrote:

burden shifting wrote:

Well, if you read that paper, I do not understand why you still have questions. They can only act (and expect to have it upheld by CAS) where there is evidence to support the rule.

You don't have to LIKE that result, but that is why the result is what it is. Your intuition that T should help in other events is not enough to create a rule that will be upheld.

I'm at an academic institution so I have a copy of the paper, a couple of us just posted about this a couple days ago. The paper's methodology and conclusions were totally faulty. First, Ross Tucker is not a pro-Semenya person but he had *many* criticisms of it and was unable to reproduce their results, given the same data. IIRC, he found that some data points were fabricated and others were repeated multiple times. He published a letter he wrote about it, which you can find on his blog and other letsrun posts. They made many mistakes in the analysis and the effect is diminished when a proper analysis is done. Second, I pointed out that they don't have any sort of multiple-testing correction (in fact they state that they don't). Given 40 statistical tests you expect 2 false positives by random chance, and any small bias in the analysis can lead to more of them when the number of tests is so high. This is not the right way to analyze data, it's a form of p-hacking. Third, if that's the way you want to interpret the results, the same analysis shows that T levels actually hurt the sprint events and the effect is more significant (in the opposite direction) than middle distance! This defies all common sense and relies on the unlikely possibility that the sprinters whose results they've measured aren't doping. Fourth, I think that the fact that they included Semenya and Niyonsaba's measurements in the analysis (and seven other DSD athletes) is a mistake, because they were the reason for the study in the first place. This creates a type of ascertainment bias (actually there's another word for this type of statistical fallacy that I can't remember right now). Their testosterone levels are huge outliers and they aren't actually able to process the testosterone their body produces, but their measurements account for a large fraction of the effect that was observed.

So the reason why there are still questions is because in truth there was no real evidence suggesting that performance in these events were linked to T levels, or that Semenya's ability to make use of the excess T her body produces gives her an advantage.

Anyhow I clicked on this thread because I wanted to post a different question: Are Diamond league meets allowed to invite Semenya to race in exhibition heats despite the ruling? It might be interesting to watch Semenya run 800s against top women in non-diamond-league-sanctioned races.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

David S wrote:

burden shifting wrote:

Well, if you read that paper, I do not understand why you still have questions. They can only act (and expect to have it upheld by CAS) where there is evidence to support the rule.

You don't have to LIKE that result, but that is why the result is what it is. Your intuition that T should help in other events is not enough to create a rule that will be upheld.

I'm at an academic institution so I have a copy of the paper, a couple of us just posted about this a couple days ago. The paper's methodology and conclusions were totally faulty. First, Ross Tucker is not a pro-Semenya person but he had *many* criticisms of it and was unable to reproduce their results, given the same data. IIRC, he found that some data points were fabricated and others were repeated multiple times. He published a letter he wrote about it, which you can find on his blog and other letsrun posts. They made many mistakes in the analysis and the effect is diminished when a proper analysis is done. Second, I pointed out that they don't have any sort of multiple-testing correction (in fact they state that they don't). Given 40 statistical tests you expect 2 false positives by random chance, and any small bias in the analysis can lead to more of them when the number of tests is so high. This is not the right way to analyze data, it's a form of p-hacking. Third, if that's the way you want to interpret the results, the same analysis shows that T levels actually hurt the sprint events and the effect is more significant (in the opposite direction) than middle distance! This defies all common sense and relies on the unlikely possibility that the sprinters whose results they've measured aren't doping. Fourth, I think that the fact that they included Semenya and Niyonsaba's measurements in the analysis (and seven other DSD athletes) is a mistake, because they were the reason for the study in the first place. This creates a type of ascertainment bias (actually there's another word for this type of statistical fallacy that I can't remember right now). Their testosterone levels are huge outliers and they aren't actually able to process the testosterone their body produces, but their measurements account for a large fraction of the effect that was observed.

So the reason why there are still questions is because in truth there was no real evidence suggesting that performance in these events were linked to T levels, or that Semenya's ability to make use of the excess T her body produces gives her an advantage.

Anyhow I clicked on this thread because I wanted to post a different question: Are Diamond league meets allowed to invite Semenya to race in exhibition heats despite the ruling? It might be interesting to watch Semenya run 800s against top women in non-diamond-league-sanctioned races.

Finally, a more interesting post.

I appreciate and understand the nuances of research, and accept for the moment your criticisms at face value. IMO the decision to base this decision on current T is flawed, as Semenya retains all the benefits of a lifetime of high T, even if current levels are suppressed. Semenya may continue to dominate at an acceptably lower level of T.

I do, however, understand why they hung their hat on T, notwithstanding possible weaknesses in the study. It may likely prove difficult moving forward.

Lastly, you assume that all of Semenya’s T is of endogenous origin—and although that assumption does not invalidate your criticism, it does suggest bias, unless there is proof to the contrary (which there may very well be, I haven’t done the reading).

Thanks for your non-insane contribution to the thread.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Vancomycin, this is a track board—something that appears to have escaped your notice.

And your arrogant bias is on display: “mislabel”. According to what standards? Yours? Right.

You seem like you might have good intentions, so read the posts and try to understand why I respect neither your desire to have me do something, nor Semenya’s actions on the track.

Argue to me how either is deserving of my respect, because it is the only way that you can hope to achieve anything here. Semenya started off neutral for me, the baseline of respect—everyone gets a clean slate and an open mind—and gave up that neutrality based on his observed actions.

You seem to conflate respect with idolatry. Do you understand how I could, rationally, respect neither your wish nor his actions on the track? Do you understand how I could rationally conclude that those actions are evidence of poor character and lack of honor? Do you understand that honor and good character are qualities of sportsmanship?

I have said a million times that I know nothing about Semenya other than what is public in track, and it is those public track actions to which I have limited my remarks. If that is too difficult for you to handle, you might want to think about improving your coping skills.

Jo72 wrote:

? We have had several years of supremely uninteresting 800s (and occasional 600 and 1000m) races of Semenya because she always one easily, often in a way that (very probably not intentionally) seemed mocking, as in coasting along for 500 to 600m and totally and easily (and utterly predictably) destroying the field on the last 200m.

While questions of fairness are paramount, it would be dishonest not to admit that for most athletics fans this easy dominance was the worst thing. The 800m is usually are one of the most exciting and "open" events, with frequent failures of favorites. This never happened with Semenya in a race (and Niyonsaba usually was as predictably second).

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Maybe now we can proceed to discus—although it will have to wait until tomorrow, but I promise to get back to you.

Cousin Ernie wrote:

I feel sorry for her.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Vancomycin, this is a track board—something that appears to have escaped your notice.

And your arrogant bias is on display: “mislabel”. According to what standards? Yours? Right.

You seem like you might have good intentions, so read the posts and try to understand why I respect neither your desire to have me do something, nor Semenya’s actions on the track.

Argue to me how either is deserving of my respect, because it is the only way that you can hope to achieve anything here. Semenya started off neutral for me, the baseline of respect—everyone gets a clean slate and an open mind—and gave up that neutrality based on his observed actions.

You seem to conflate respect with idolatry. Do you understand how I could, rationally, respect neither your wish nor his actions on the track? Do you understand how I could rationally conclude that those actions are evidence of poor character and lack of honor? Do you understand that honor and good character are qualities of sportsmanship?

I have said a million times that I know nothing about Semenya other than what is public in track, and it is those public track actions to which I have limited my remarks. If that is too difficult for you to handle, you might want to think about improving your coping skills.

Jesus wept wrote:

Why why why wrote:

[quote]Cousin Ernie wrote:

Didn’t deserve to? She was born that way. You god awful person. She hasn’t cheated. She hasn’t taken illegal drugs. She was born with internal testes and utilised that through sporting endeavour. What have you done with your septic micro penis? Apart from trying to rape your dad?

namnanamnman wrote:

"discrimination is a necessary, reasonable and proportionate means of achieving the IAAF’s aim of preserving the integrity of female athletics in the Restricted Events.”

Swyer wrote:

Looks like Semenya is female by definition of what 46 XY is-

---

Vancomycin wrote:

You are trying so hard to defend being an ***hole. I'm curious how old you are?

But ok, I will keep engaging for honors sake :)

1) Caster Semenya identifies as a woman. This is a sociocultural label not a discussion on her karyotype. It's foundational to a persons identity. It's hurtful to refer to her as a man, just as using slurs or calling people names based on their identity is rude and plays no bearing on the argument. Choosing to call her a certain pronoun says nothing about whether you believe: she is qualified to compete in women's track, if she is honest, anything else about her.

2) Being respectful to people you strongly disagree with actually HELPS your argument! People are less likely to take you seriously if you insist on being childish.

3) The BroJos have repeatedly requested that posters do not mislabel Semenya as "he." At the end of the day this community has chosen certain standards. You should abide by them if you wish to continuing participating.

Here 3 different standards by which your actions are unacceptable.

I can cope with your behavior, but I feel it's my duty to reprimand actions that makes this community less interesting, unproductive, negative, etc.

---

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Vancomycin, this is a track board—something that appears to have escaped your notice.

And your arrogant bias is on display: “mislabel”. According to what standards? Yours? Right.

You seem like you might have good intentions, so read the posts and try to understand why I respect neither your desire to have me do something, nor Semenya’s actions on the track.

Argue to me how either is deserving of my respect, because it is the only way that you can hope to achieve anything here. Semenya started off neutral for me, the baseline of respect—everyone gets a clean slate and an open mind—and gave up that neutrality based on his observed actions.

You seem to conflate respect with idolatry. Do you understand how I could, rationally, respect neither your wish nor his actions on the track? Do you understand how I could rationally conclude that those actions are evidence of poor character and lack of honor? Do you understand that honor and good character are qualities of sportsmanship?

I have said a million times that I know nothing about Semenya other than what is public in track, and it is those public track actions to which I have limited my remarks. If that is too difficult for you to handle, you might want to think about improving your coping skills.

---

---

---

Vancomycin wrote:

Yup, anyone who makes overarching claims about the "female" vs "male" and how "obvious" this should be is just ignoring reality. It's very tricky and by no means over.

---

Swyer wrote:

Looks like Semenya is female by definition of what 46 XY is-

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/swyer-syndrome

---

---

---

Sprintgeezer wrote:

---

Vancomycin wrote:

You are trying so hard to defend being an ***hole. I'm curious how old you are?

But ok, I will keep engaging for honors sake :)

1) Caster Semenya identifies as a woman. This is a sociocultural label not a discussion on her karyotype. It's foundational to a persons identity. It's hurtful to refer to her as a man, just as using slurs or calling people names based on their identity is rude and plays no bearing on the argument. Choosing to call her a certain pronoun says nothing about whether you believe: she is qualified to compete in women's track, if she is honest, anything else about her.

2) Being respectful to people you strongly disagree with actually HELPS your argument! People are less likely to take you seriously if you insist on being childish.

3) The BroJos have repeatedly requested that posters do not mislabel Semenya as "he." At the end of the day this community has chosen certain standards. You should abide by them if you wish to continuing participating.

Here 3 different standards by which your actions are unacceptable.

I can cope with your behavior, but I feel it's my duty to reprimand actions that makes this community less interesting, unproductive, negative, etc.

---

Sprintgeezer wrote:

Vancomycin, this is a track board—something that appears to have escaped your notice.

And your arrogant bias is on display: “mislabel”. According to what standards? Yours? Right.

You seem like you might have good intentions, so read the posts and try to understand why I respect neither your desire to have me do something, nor Semenya’s actions on the track.

Argue to me how either is deserving of my respect, because it is the only way that you can hope to achieve anything here. Semenya started off neutral for me, the baseline of respect—everyone gets a clean slate and an open mind—and gave up that neutrality based on his observed actions.

You seem to conflate respect with idolatry. Do you understand how I could, rationally, respect neither your wish nor his actions on the track? Do you understand how I could rationally conclude that those actions are evidence of poor character and lack of honor? Do you understand that honor and good character are qualities of sportsmanship?

I have said a million times that I know nothing about Semenya other than what is public in track, and it is those public track actions to which I have limited my remarks. If that is too difficult for you to handle, you might want to think about improving your coping skills.

---

---

First, I will say that you have disrespectfully attempted to control the conversation and steer it in the direction of your choosing, apparently without having read my previous posts. You have tried to make it about my character, and have ignored the actual topics under discussion, namely honest and fair competition, and Semenya's role therein.

Even at that, I will engage the discussion, although I will use the original topics as a touchstone. Because apparently I have to make it explicit, that is being respectful of you, to a very high degree--however, I do not respect your tactic of attempting to change the subject.

I will start with point #3, because it is the most important point here, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Semenya or fair competition, which are the actual topics of discussion. If what you said is true, then out of respect for the Brojos and their property which is this site, I will of course stop immediately. I had no idea, and I will wait to hear from the Brojos themselves. The Brojos have earned that respect--they started and continue to run the site, and provide value to users like us.

Point #2: there is a difference between being respectful TO [OF] people, and being respectful OF THEIR ACTIONS. You are confusing the two. At the moment, I am being respectful of yourself, someone with whom I apparently disagree. I have also been respectful of Semenya, in that I entertain this discussion at all, and in that everything I say is based on evidence, and not on some irrational motive I may have, or any baseless or dishonorable negative feelings I may have for Semenya.

I will say it again, for the last time--I don't know Semenya personally, and all I am commenting on is his participation in organized competitive track. He may have plenty of good qualities, and he might actually be someone I would enjoy hanging out with, I have no idea. But this is a track board, and a track thread. No matter how much you seem to want to make it so, this discussion is not about the psychosexual qualities of transgenderism or gender identity--it is about track and field, which is a competitive sport. I reject your attempt to hijack the discussion.

And by referring to me as "childish", you are making a character assessment based on observed actions and comments--which makes you a hypocrite, because you don't accept my doing the same thing. By your actions, you have validated my own. It was inevitable, because as humans, we observe, interpret, analyze, conclude, communicate, we cognate. It could be no other way.

Point #1: First of all, Semenya has stated himself that he is not "hurt". From the Sunday Times: "A confident Caster said that mean comments about her don't hurt her feelings because she knows who she is. "Being the way I am is good. It's God. I cannot question God. When I wake up I tell myself I like myself the way I am."" For you to purport to speak on behalf of Semenya is pretentious and arrogant, and apparently you have misrepresented him, at that.

You seem very ego-centric, in that rather than considering the content of what I have written and the qualifiers that I have supplied with it, you are almost exclusively concerned with its effect on you personally, on your own values and probably self-construct. You are seeing what you wish to see, and it is all personal. I do not purport to tell Semenya how to self-identify, something which he does fine himself. It is you who are the controlling one here, not myself or Semenya, who has stated that "I know how I look like. I know how I sound. I know how I walk. I walk the talk. I'm a woman of my actions. I'm just gonna be me. I do me and you do you." While I am letting "you do you" and even respecting it by discussing it with you, I will say that it is uninteresting. There are plenty of more interesting things about this situation, like all of the innocent women athletes who have been harmed by Semenya's actions and by the glacial pace of a self-interested bureaucracy--women about whom you haven't even deigned to comment, which is telling.

Why do I refer to Semenya as "he"? Because use of language is a critical and sometimes subtle tool that is often used to frame the limits of the debate--or in this case, to re-frame the limits of the debate, or to re-characterize the debate. The issue here is fairness of competition within 2 broad categories of ability, which categories have historically been associated with a binary gender delineation referred to as "male" and "female". This is the language of the debate, and has certainly not been the last word, for there have been plenty of intersex, high-T, XXY, etc. people in sports for a long time.

The language of the debate articulates the foundation of the issue. For purposes of this issue, Semenya has been determined, not only by myself but by impartial arbitrators, to be in the "male" category. To refer to Semenya in the context of this issue by using a female pronoun is a subtle way in which to express your rejection of the determination. I do not reject that determination, I applaud it as correct, and refer to Semenya as male to preserve the decision and its process, the legitimacy of which you try to undermine via your use of the feminine.

Nor in my opinion is his "male-ness" restricted to the restricted events. T level is one thing, developmental physiology is another. I consider him to be male for all athletic purposes, regardless of his T level, and will refer to him appropriately.

Once again, I do not believe that Semenya's actions in this matter have been praiseworthy, laudable, honorable, or even harmless. If Semenya has anywhere near normal cognitive ability and is not a sociopath, then he has always understood that his actions were unfair, and were injuring innocent third parties, yet continued out of a selfish desire for personal gain. When you jog to a huge victory, you are either an idiot or an a-hole if you don't realize that something is wrong with what you just did. I have chosen to believe that of these two, he is mostly an a-hole, because he seems normally articulate. Although his harmful and selfish actions were temporarily permitted by regulators, that is no longer the case, at least at those distances at which his performances are likely to continue to cause ongoing harm.

If you wish to have a discussion about something other than fairness of competition or Semenya's role therein, you can go somewhere else, or start a new thread. I reject your attempt to change the discussion to one of gender self-identification.

---

---

Subway Surfers wrote:

---

Perry Mason wrote:

The correct ruling.

---

Exactly, even women on roids couldn't compete with her.

---

---

Sprintgeezer wrote:

“Woman”, “man”, etc have different meanings to different people, and when used in different contexts.

For purposes of this decision, T level is the defining factor in the stated race distances. It literally defines whether Semenya will be permitted to compete in the “women’s” category, or in the “men’s” category. For the purpose of determining competition, it will be decided by the IAAF whether Semenya is a man or a woman.

I have a different, and greater purpose than the IAAF. The IAAF’s purpose is to ensure fair competition, within the bounds of what is legally, financially, and administratively acceptable and possible. Notice that the decision has boilerplate and that it uses strict legal tests and terms of art.

My purpose is to advocate for fair competition, and I am bound by only moral, and not practical, legal, or administrative constraints. I go beyond the IAAF in that I believe that if someone developed as a male, they should not be allowed to compete against women regardless of their T level—and correspondingly, that anybody who developed as a female should be able to compete against women if they have a typically female T value.

Further than that, I put the onus on the individual to self-select out of a sense of moral duty, a concept that the IAAF has chosen not to pursue.

Semenya may self-identify in life as a female, as a woman, as a martian, as whatever—but I don’t respect his wish that others consider him thusly in whatever context suits his convenience. The IAAF, CAS, etc agree with me, when it comes to the determination of competition based on T level. They take no position otherwise.

I do. There is absolutely no reason why I should respect Semenya’s self-serving wishes in this matter. He can self-identify as whatever he wants, and I, in turn, can identify him as anything I want. Seeing what I have seen of how Semenya lives, it is entirely possible that my motivation is purer than is Semenya’s, because my only interest is to ensure fair competitive opportunities for others—I have no direct personal stake in this whatsoever, unlike Semenya.

While he may consider it personally insulting (and certainly inconvenient) to be referred to as a “he” in the track context, it is insulting (and certainly inconvenient) to others that Semenya asks/expects to be referred to as a “she” in that same track context. There is no good reason to elevate Semenya’s wishes above those of others, and there is IMO good reason not to.

Semenya is not the victim here, Semenya is the perp, and knows it. With the temporary assistance of a slow-moving and uncertain bureaucracy, he has exploited those weaker than himself for personal gain and glory. Based on his track-related actions, Semenya’s gender-identification wishes deserve no respect.

---