Semenya update: IAAF argues she is "biologically male with a female gender identity" in new 163 page doc

It only took ten years to figure that out. Farcical.

YMMV wrote:

It only took ten years to figure that out. Farcical.

there are 163 pages and that was only one quote, i think we need to wait a little for people to read it. seems like, unfortunately, it reaffirms that the IAAF study on hyperandrogenism was flawed which i think is the strongest argument against them.

considering the "study" did not actually involve taking any new tests and was just basically (incorrectly) running computer programs to sift through old IAAF worlds data + their private testosterone stats, i wonder why they can't just do it over real quick without the errors?

also, semenya claimed the IAAF were trying to make the DSD regulations into a "shadow transgender rule" here which is the first time i've seen them use that language:

I haven't, and won't, read the document, but I doubt if 163 pages can be summarized with one sentence. Even Barr's summary was 4 pages.

yes, was not intending to summarize the whole document with that one sentence. just repeating the CBC headline because with some added context because it was the first i saw.

i think the immunity will last long enough for Semenya to race 800 at worlds. beyond that, it's hard to say what will happen.

it seems like Semenya and her supporters would want the IAAF to treat gender just like we already treat nationality in the case where an athlete has multiple citizenships -- i.e. you get to choose which country you represent first, then there might be some 3-year waiting period and official process to transfer later on. sort of like the conclusion of this study, (not specifically in the doc as far as i can see) on page 13:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wyDgbmWul9yRBDHiaHhN1tFIE8mkV7FF/view

the problem i see with this is that nationality is not a protected category in the same sense that sex in sport is. the study claims wrongly imo that athletes aren't "bought and sold" between countries (see Kenyans competing for Bahrain, Lisa Nemec to Croatia, etc), and ultimately elite American and Kenyan athletes can still be compared time-wise while the same comparisons can't be drawn between female and male categories.

to me, national-level competition isn't a farce because it was never meant to be based upon qualities that give someone advantages in the sport -- the point of national competition is that you have a smaller pool of athletes to choose from and the fun lies in following and predicting who can become globally competitive. maybe it is a farce in some sense because of the frequent transfers of allegiance and programs like wcap, but the bottom line is that those processes still don't ruin the integrity of the sport because times speak for themselves. it's probably the most well-thought-out argument for semenya i've heard though.

I can still remember Diane Mohdal suing British Athletics out of existence in the 90s.

Soon a woman will get really sick on her enforced medication the IAAF are stuffing down her and sue them into oblivion. You read it here first.

Long memory poster wrote:

Soon a woman will get really sick on her enforced medication the IAAF are stuffing down her and sue them into oblivion. You read it here first.

no ones stuffing any meds down anyone. her decision to compete or not, within the defined rules.

plus its a priviluge to compete, just like we hear about the nfl n stuff right?

This is a joke. I'll only have the old lost interest due to this is this just made our support a joke. A joke that is popped up all over the world now. Liberals should be so proud

Long memory poster wrote:

I can still remember Diane Mohdal suing British Athletics out of existence in the 90s.

Soon a woman will get really sick on her enforced medication the IAAF are stuffing down her and sue them into oblivion. You read it here first.

The treatment is the contraceptive pill. Although there can be side effects, it's not exactly a dangerous treatment.

Prefontaine Classic just announced that Semenya is being allowed to switch to the 800 from the 3000.

Old Oregonian wrote:

Prefontaine Classic just announced that Semenya is being allowed to switch to the 800 from the 3000.

nice. then the steroid doper wont win

Just make it go away!!!!!!!!

Old Oregonian wrote:

Prefontaine Classic just announced that Semenya is being allowed to switch to the 800 from the 3000.

As what gender?

Old Oregonian wrote:

Prefontaine Classic just announced that Semenya is being allowed to switch to the 800 from the 3000.

Great news... will Wambui and Niyonsaba also get to compete?

Dijon Sanders wrote:

Just make it go away!!!!!!!!

Do you mean women's sports?

After skimming through the thread about Allie O complaining about the Sports Announcers commenting on her appearance, I'm inclined to start rooting for Semenya just to see all women's sports go away so these insufferable women can go back to activities for which they are more naturally suited.

Can you imagine when all the DSD athletes take over "women's" sports, how low the rating will be? Oh it will be glorious to watch the demise. Maybe the disincentive for women to participate in sports will be so great that the absurdity of title IX will grow more stark and it can finally be destroyed.

make what go away? wrote:

Dijon Sanders wrote:

Just make it go away!!!!!!!!

Do you mean women's sports?

After skimming through the thread about Allie O complaining about the Sports Announcers commenting on her appearance, I'm inclined to start rooting for Semenya just to see all women's sports go away so these insufferable women can go back to activities for which they are more naturally suited.

Can you imagine when all the DSD athletes take over "women's" sports, how low the rating will be? Oh it will be glorious to watch the demise. Maybe the disincentive for women to participate in sports will be so great that the absurdity of title IX will grow more stark and it can finally be destroyed.

No, not women’s sports. Exactly the opposite. Caster needs to go away. It’s not her fault the way she was born, but she’s ruing women’s track.

Go away Caster.....

Well I'm not going to comment on whether the argument is correct or whether the decision is correct, mostly because I am not going to read the entire 163 pages.

I'm commenting only on the IAAF legal strategy. This seems like an odd argument to make, because as far as I know there are no IAAF regulations which attempt to define whether somebody is "biologically male" or "biologically female." I haven't really heard them advance that argument before and without some basis for it in regulations I don't know how that could really pass muster. It's been a few years since I looked but there was a paper that described the process for "gender evaluation" but not a standard for determination. I'm not sure they were following that process any more.

I read most of the document. I think it does a good job of showing how invasively the IAAF has treated Semenya, from the very first testing before the 2009 WC where they immediately leaked the results to the public to the most recent trial.

1. The summary of Semenya's testimony is pretty compelling. On page 17 it talks about how she claimed the testosterone suppressing medication caused a lot of problems (nausea, fevers, abdominal pain, etc), but she still managed to run 1:57 in 2012, which was 2-3 years after she had been consistently taking the medication. I didn't realize she still ran so fast so long after she had been taking the medication. She also ran 1:56 a year or two after taking it. They kept her levels below 10nmol/L, but it was sometimes as low as 1.

2. Page 155, they talk about why it was only these specific events. They basically admit that they're targeting events that DSD athletes who are successful at the 800m might want to compete in. They didn't target the Hammer or Pole Vault, where the evidence was stronger, but they did target the 1500/mile, where evidence was weaker. The IAAF claims that this choice was based on participation levels i.e. that they targeted the events where more DSD athletes were competing. This seems targeted and discriminatory to me. What's going to happen in 20 years if there happen to be a half dozen successful DSD athletes in the hammer throw or the 200, are they going to swap around the rulings and prohibit them from competing in those events in response to their performance? I don't like these performance-based decisions. Athletes are allowed to compete as long as they aren't too successful??

3. The discussion on pages 130-131 is interesting to me where they say that although 5-ARD is related to the production of DHT from testosterone, DHT is actually not believed (by the panel) to have the same effect on performance as testosterone. So they're basically saying that the biological mechanism that gave Semenya outwardly female characteristics is not the trait they link most strongly to athletic performance. This is news to me and I think it's probably the most important point, does anyone see a reference for this?

4. On page 132 they say, "It is not disputed that a person, whether a man or a woman, with 5-ARD is a person who is XY, with testes and not ovaries and levels of endogenous circulating testosterone in the male range. What is in dispute is whether these differences, and particularly testosterone levels, do in fact affect body composition, muscle mass and haemoglobin levels to the same or similar extent as in the male adult population and whether such differences have an impact on sports performance. The Panel addresses these disputed issues further below." I'm not sure if I know where this discussion is, maybe sort of everywhere?

5. Page 141, they basically say that the ruling is made because of the overrepresentation of DSD athletes in these events, and they think the other evidence plays a smaller but supporting role because they don't really know if they can trust it (scientific papers, performance while taking medications).

I read the whole thing yesterday and have written a "summary" for LetsRun. It might get published soon. Of course, 163 pages is impossible to summarize, especially when you're reading and writing fast.

I mentioned the oral contraceptive issue, but don't think I clarified it well enough. Basically, it came up late in the proceedings, and caused CAS some consternation. The question is: Will simple oral contraceptives, used by millions worldwide and generally regarded as low-risk (despite some side effects) actually achieve what IAAF wants--T lowering below 5.0 nmol/L? How is anyone supposed to know the answer to this? There's little data on T changes in XY DSD women who take the pills. In Semenya's case, she reportedly varied from under 1.0 to 7.4 while taking the pills exactly as prescribed (she said). Back in the 2009-2015 period, she was supposed to get below 10.0--not the new standard of 5.0.

The problem here is the notion of "reasonable and proportionate" methods to achieve IAAF's goal. It's absolutely central to the whole argument. That's why it comes up so often. If contraceptives work, great. If they don't, the use of stronger drugs or surgery might not be deemed reasonable and proportionate.

We already know that the World Medical Association is on Semenya's side with regard to taking oral contraceptives. I don't think this question is going to disappear quickly.

On the other hand, I got a chuckle, not the politically correct thing to say, over CAS's judgment on the pro Semenya amicus curiae brief from a United Nations working group. CAS basically said: This is not remotely helpful. We fully understand that there's some discrimination here. What we need is help deciding between the conflicting rights of XY DSD women on the one hand and XX women on the other hand. We have to discriminate against someone. Who should it be?

Ridiculous value-laden statement.

One does not discriminate “against someone “, one discriminates “between alternatives”.

Language is revealing—for instance, the CAS could equally have frames it as discriminating “in favor” of someone ( which would also be incorrect).

An incredibly inarticulate and legally feeble acquaintance of mine just got appointed to a supreme court bench. It was a 100% political appointment.

And people wonder why jurisprudence is in the toilet.