Caster Semenya admits she has an advantage, but dismisses it by adding "so what?"

Will Spaghetti wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

Dude, ...I didn't call Caster a dude

However, you are derailing an argument over an important issue by focusing on such semantics, that's all it is. You say gender I say sex.

Do you think the girls getting their ar$$es whipped by a biologically male person care about pronouns?

There is a very important distinction between gender and sex, and that distinction is at the heart of the issue here. Those two words do not mean the same thing, and conflating the two betrays ignorance at best, hate at worst.

Easy tiger....I know what sex is, but determining your own gender just to run unfairly against other women is not how athletics works.

You are being the hateful ignoramus here...do you not care about the other real (biological) females in the race?

+1000, exactly ..

We used to have M/F, now the abbreviations are stretching the limits of the alphabet. World going crazy.

As an event manager, we now have as classification in the timing software, M/F/A...WTF?

Athletics is M or F, and that is how our races classify it. If you don't wish to declare your sex, up to you, you do not qualify for any prizes other than outright.

Your use of "phenotypically female" seems pretty narrowly defined, remember everybody in her life thought she was female until she underwent a specialized examination as an adult. I'm pretty sure your use of the term is in the minority here.

There's also no need to put the word "she" in quotes if she identifies as female or to call her "male" as you do later on.

I'm pretty sure most American men have bigger tits and smaller muscles than most female runners, I'm not sure that has much to do with masculinity and femininity or unfair advantages, and I don't think we have enough data from enough individuals with her condition to know to what extent her testosterone levels are a benefit to her. This seems beside the point. The definition of "fair" is what everyone is arguing about.

As you say, these kinds of phenotype/genotype discussions are irrelevant to the question of "fairness". Caster admits she has an advantage, but she doesn't think that advantage is "unfair" in the sense that you do. That's the whole point of her argument.

I'm not a huge fan of the new rules because they still seem arbitrary. But I'm not sure what a better system would be. Here's my problem:

What if someone with her condition took the medication, lowered her testosterone (to a level still above most women), and managed to set a new WR? Would they ask her to lower her testosterone even further? In other words, is the IAAF re-writing rules based on performance? If so, this fails the basic principal that maybe we can all dream to set a world record one day. Worrying that the IAAF is going to lower your testosterone level every time you perform well means that you're not participating in an equal playing field.

We also have no reason to expect them to keep it fixed at its current level. When Caster had her testosterone suppressed several years ago they set a higher threshold for her. Why is the current threshold lower than the old one? I understand why she feels targeted. What if she agrees to the current threshold and they cut it in half next year?

I had the same reservations with the Oscar Pistorius case. They ruled that the blades gave him no advantage. But would shaving off a gram give him an advantage? Would they change their minds if he had run a 39-second 400m on them?

It doesn't seem like the right way to make decisions.

David S wrote:

Your use of "phenotypically female" seems pretty narrowly defined, remember everybody in her life thought she was female until she underwent a specialized examination as an adult. I'm pretty sure your use of the term is in the minority here.

There's also no need to put the word "she" in quotes if she identifies as female or to call her "male" as you do later on.

Identifying oneself as a,b , c or d is an artificial construct, who cares. Athletics is biological sexes.

And you are wrong that 'everybody in 'her' life thought 'she' was female". How do you know that? Were you around?

There are photos and reports of Caster rejecting that classification as a kid

Have this:

You claimed earlier that Semenya is phenotypically female; using the accepted criteria for the term I pointed out that she/he isn't. But that isn't really the point. For the purposes of discussing what is fair in women's sport the key issue is that Semenya is genotypically male. That is what 46XY means - and which is what Semenya is. Every cell in her body is male; her DNA is male. That she is also DSD is a distinction of detail; it may explain why she identifies as female but in all the relevant respects in this discussion "she" is biologically male, with the many advantages that confers. Testosterone is only part of the picture but it is a useful criterion as it is easily measurable and shows different levels between biological male and female. Requiring athletes in women's competition to conform to levels closer to the female level - and more crucially, not the male level - is a start to protecting women's sport.

It's a start, but a start in the wrong direction.

Sport is not classified into how long your legs are, how big your hands are, how tall you are or how much testosterone you have. That in fact is a point of competition, to find competitors that are better than those before.

For the purposes of the known fact that males are inherently stronger, taller, more testosterone, there are simple binary classifications of Male and Female.

Caster does not fit into the Female category, notwithstanding whatever self identification.

Either we stick with the binary classification based on sex, or we do away with classification (which is essentially what it is in the IAAF response).

What is fairer for females?

She can't help her condition. She was born that way. No choice in the matter. The leaders running the sport of track could accommodate her and others with a category that would let her compete fairly against others with similar biological qualities.

This pronoun stuff is going too far. A person is entitled to lie, but they are not entitled to force that lie upon others. I cannot be forced to participate in someone else’s fraud just because that fraud makes them feel better.

If Caster has characteristics of both sexes, any of us are free to call them a he, she, or they. However, if he’s more male than female, then he or they are the appropriate pronouns.

If I identify as a tree, I can’t force someone else to start referring to me as a tree. And, if they reject my lie and refer to me as a “he,” instead of a tree, they aren’t being offensive, they’re just applying common sense.

The IAAF has been very clear that some athletes with XY chromosomes may be allowed to compete in the women's division if they don't have certain advantages over women with XX chromosomes. My understanding is that people with AIS for instance may have very high testosterone levels but not be able to make use of it and would be permitted to compete in the women's category. Would such a person be "biologically male"?

I agree that requiring XX chromosomes in the women's category would be a clearer distinction in many cases (unless you're XXY for instance), but it would also prevent more people from competing.

For most people, including sports competitors, the need to verify their sex according to their chromosomes or genotype wouldn't arise; with a few rare exceptions we are mostly - and unquestionably - male XY and female XX. The issue of ascertaining a person's sex is only likely to arise if there are apparent anomalies - which in a female athlete might be an unusual degree of androgeny. A chromosome test could clarify whether they are XX , or perhaps DSDXY - like Semenya.

You suggest that some athletes might not have the opportunity to compete if the gender categories are divided simply according to whether individuals are XX or XY and an athlete doesn't fit into either category. In response to that question, those who don't fit the accepted criteria for female competition would still be able to compete in the male or open category. However, if we are considering elite levels of sport, few - if any - DSDXY athletes have been successful in the male category. It is also the case that those who individuals who are androgen insensitive would not be successful in either male or female category, as they are typically physically less well-developed. In any case, we are talking about statistically very few individuals. At a recreational level, these issues may not arise, as there could be less concern about maintaining strict biological gender categories in sports participation.

It is significant that the IAAF has not chosen the contentious ground of gender identity on which to contest these issues but focussed on the more specific issue of which biological features would confer unfair advantage, and have identified testosterone as a key component in that discussion. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there are other physiological characteristics which also confer advantage on biological males competing in women's sport. The debate is far from being over.

Innocent cheater wrote:

He can't help his condition. He was born that way. No choice in the matter. The leaders running the sport of track could accommodate him and others with a category that would let him compete fairly against others with similar biological qualities.

The IAAF already has a men's open division, so they don't even need to create something new.

It's been right there the whole time.

Sprinter Guy wrote:

This pronoun stuff is going too far. A person is entitled to lie, but they are not entitled to force that lie upon others. I cannot be forced to participate in someone else’s fraud just because that fraud makes them feel better.

If Caster has characteristics of both sexes, any of us are free to call them a he, she, or they. However, if he’s more male than female, then he or they are the appropriate pronouns.

If I identify as a tree, I can’t force someone else to start referring to me as a tree. And, if they reject my lie and refer to me as a “he,” instead of a tree, they aren’t being offensive, they’re just applying common sense.

Calling him a tree is what created all this mess in the first place.

HE IS NOT A TREE.

So stop calling him a tree, and stop saying that people are jerks who don't call him a tree.