Watch Semenya race 2k - Live now 4 pm ET.

Correction: I'm not "swallowing what the IAAF says" - Semenya is, and so are the scientists who were critical of the IAAF using testosterone as a measure of what is fair in women's sport. They have not disputed this part of the IAAF case. Either Semenya and her counsel and the scientists who support her case are in error, or you are. Your grasp of the details is faulty but more importantly you fail to understand what is at stake here for the vast majority of women in sport. How ironic, since your peculiar brand of feminist militancy enables you to see little else.

I don't know what your point is, you keep posting articles as if no one else can read or has seen them. The IAAF is corrupt and says one thing and does the other, that is the point. They originally said that they were NOT going to argue that to CAS and of course they did. SO WHAT? So, you think that because IAAF says she is biologically male that means that it's true? They also previously said that she was "unquestionably female" but what they say and do in public and behind closed doors is not the same.

What exactly do you think this shows that we did not already know?

https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/iaaf-denies-attempting-to-classify-semenya-as-biologically-male/

"We're done here!" He/she/xir says, right before writing a massive response.

Also, using some German Protestant's poem on the Holocaust in the same conversation as someone running track... that's a bit much, isn't it?

Why don't we just have every event be all-comers? No age groups or M/F groups. If you're fast relative to everyone else, then you win.

Dr Taboo wrote:

Saying that she has testosterone levels of a man however, is 100% untrue.

My understanding is that he has double the testosterone level of an average man.

dunes runner wrote:

My understanding is that he has double the testosterone level of an average man.

She must have received your share.

Targeting 5 nmol/L appears to have no justification, since it is triple the high range of women, but the IAAF figure for the male average range is not just made up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190174/

"We show that total testosterone peaks [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] at 15.4 (7.2–31.1) nmol/L at an average age of 19 years, and falls in the average case [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] to 13.0 (6.6–25.3) nmol/L by age 40 years, but we find no evidence for a further fall in mean total testosterone with increasing age through to old age."

zxcvxcvz wrote:

Targeting 5 nmol/L appears to have no justification, since it is triple the high range of women, but the IAAF figure for the male average range is not just made up:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4190174/

"We show that total testosterone peaks [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] at 15.4 (7.2–31.1) nmol/L at an average age of 19 years, and falls in the average case [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] to 13.0 (6.6–25.3) nmol/L by age 40 years, but we find no evidence for a further fall in mean total testosterone with increasing age through to old age."

So let me get this straight, you use an abstract created with the intent of identifying and establishing a biochemical reference range for the clinical assessment of hypogonadism in men as possible validation for IAAF saying that 7.2 nmol/L of circulating testosterone falls within the normal male range? I strong suggest to read (and understand) THE ENTIRE study that you just posted.

Yet you persistently fail to deal with the key point that CAS accepted the range provided by the IAAF, which was not challenged by Semenya and her lawyers, nor by researchers who have argued the IAAF policy is unfair. They must all be fools if you are correct. Or you are. Yep, the latter.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Yet you persistently fail to deal with the key point that CAS accepted the range provided by the IAAF, which was not challenged by Semenya and her lawyers, nor by researchers who have argued the IAAF policy is unfair. They must all be fools if you are correct. Or you are. Yep, the latter.

You really are an idiot. Who told you it was not challenged? Where did you get this information from? You are one of those morons that thinks that if you didn't see something happen, it didn't happen. Did you even read the document released today to see the timeline of events and what and what was not argued and presented? The answer clearly is NO, you didn't.

And also, as I stated multiple times, the range is only relevant to the perception that IAAF wants to cast. It's only relevant to public opinion so they can say that she has the testosterone of a man and have idiot, parrots like you repeating it. You clearly will never understand this point so it's pointless to continue attempting to explain it to you. Semenya's position is that she is a female and these regulations are discriminatory, lack a sound scientific basis, are arbitrary and are likely to cause grave harm to those affected. She challenges all of it! You sound like a f'king idiot when you say her lawyers are not arguing that, as if you were in there in courtroom. You literally could have only read one paragraph of the document (Overview of the case section I,2) and had a basic understanding of what Semenya's position is, but you won't do that because you are an internet expert and only interested in being perceived as intellectual. You have no real interest in actual knowledge.

Go get a medical degree with a specialty in a related field then we can chat.

Dr Taboo wrote:

nothings shocking wrote:

I for one am shocked that a XY could win a XX race. It is almost like there is some sort of advantage.

So, explain why Niyonsaba regularly gets beat by XX?

For the same reason that 1 in 10 guys couldn’t break 2:00 in the 800 if they trained for it. There are other factors involved. Caster’s 1:54 is like 1 in 100 million time for a woman, but only like 1 in 500 time for a man. Impressive, but not world class when you compare it against other athletes with testes.

Dr Taboo wrote:

She must have received your share.

Not everyone likes to have sex with guys like you do.

If the IAAF range was in error CAS would not have accepted it as evidence. If the IAAF was wrong there is no doubt this would have been raised by Semenya's lawyers, because it would have undermined the credibility of the IAAF case. Independent researchers, who have contested the IAAF evidence, have not disputed the range put forward by the IAAF. As a trained barrister I know that if the evidence was wrong or flawed in this respect it would have been seized upon by Semenya and the IAAF's critics. It has not been. You do not understand that because despite your pretensions to medical knowledge you are nothing but a bombastic ignoramus.