Semenya loses IAAF appeal . . . thoughts?

[Kris]

Biology is certainly messy, but the basic male/female distinctions hold true for 99% of people. The small minority with these intersex conditions defy these simple categories and science is still working to understand what this means in terms of athletic performance and fairness in elite competitions. As long as there are separate athletic categories for women there will inevitably have to be rules about where the dividing line is drawn, and some percentage of intersex athletes (even some raised as and living as women) will inevitably fall on the "too male" side of the line, wherever it is eventually ends up. The cultural and athletically relevant biological definitions of "woman" are not identical and are not going to overlap exactly.

I think we're basically seeing the real time unfolding of an imperfect, emotionally charged, (and yes, potentially sexist/paternalistic/corrupt) effort to create scientifically valid distinctions that result in the least amount of unfairness to both DSD athletes and those they're competing against.  I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for Semenya and the others who find themselves in the disputed territory just trying to have a career amid the shifting standards and sometimes appallingly shabby treatment of them personally. 

It's interesting to me that this is widely seen as male perpetrated sexism, though. It's essentially no skin off of mens' noses whether or not DSD athletes compete as women or as men. The IAAF efforts to establish clear, scientifically based rules could have an element of paternalistic gatekeeping but it's primarily driven by the simmering discontent of the other women these DSD athletes are competing against who didn't feel the previous status quo was fair to them.

I disagree, this is very important for male athletes.  If a man has testosterone level readings in the range of female athletes, he is at the same disadvantage competing against other men that the IAAF is claiming other women have competing against Semenya.  He should therefore be able to compete against his equals (women).

But aren't there other identifying factors between male/female such as genitalia and chromosomes? If he met all of the "female" qualifications I think he would be allowed to compete as a woman.

For the record I know very little about this particular case but it does sound like Semenaya has been treated unfairly. Is testosterone level the only justification they've used to disqualify her? That seems absurd.

On the other hand I don't follow the logic in your argument that this is sexism because a man with genetically favorable attributes doesn't receive the same treatment. It's not like there's another category Michael Phelps could be moved into based on his body composition. If he was genetically part dolphin, well then you may have a point.

The other identifying factors don't matter.  As mentioned, Semenya was examined, found to be a woman, and is being denied ability to compete based solely upon her testosterone reading.  The IAAF is arguing that testosterone matters more than all the other factors.  If that's the case . . . then men with low testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's races.  After all, it would be unfair for them to compete against men with higher testosterone.

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:


https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

I just want to clarify/point out that the article I posted did not "hint at" this. It STATED it.

And the opinion piece you posted as a response, with the click-baity title "What no one is telling you about Caster Semenya..." is clearly meant to strongly suggest that people are trying to hide this. Which, um, no.

[GuitarStv]

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

So why did IAAF limit it only to the 400m through the 1 mile track races? Why not the 100m? Why not swimming? Is it because they are specifically discriminating against one specific athlete?

And the "elite athlete" argument you've made could be said about those women that Semenya beats. They simply aren't elite enough to compete with her. In other words it would be like saying "Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people all more elite athletes should be forced to have my overweight physical attributes"?

Agreed.  The IAAF is making Semenya run in a fat suit because her fellow women are naturally fatter than she is - to go with fuzzy math's analogy.  Also important to note that Semenya has been beaten in races . . . so it's not like she's an unstoppable juggernaught because of her natural abilities.

[fuzzy math]

Biology is certainly messy, but the basic male/female distinctions hold true for 99% of people. The small minority with these intersex conditions defy these simple categories and science is still working to understand what this means in terms of athletic performance and fairness in elite competitions. As long as there are separate athletic categories for women there will inevitably have to be rules about where the dividing line is drawn, and some percentage of intersex athletes (even some raised as and living as women) will inevitably fall on the "too male" side of the line, wherever it is eventually ends up. The cultural and athletically relevant biological definitions of "woman" are not identical and are not going to overlap exactly.

I think we're basically seeing the real time unfolding of an imperfect, emotionally charged, (and yes, potentially sexist/paternalistic/corrupt) effort to create scientifically valid distinctions that result in the least amount of unfairness to both DSD athletes and those they're competing against.  I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for Semenya and the others who find themselves in the disputed territory just trying to have a career amid the shifting standards and sometimes appallingly shabby treatment of them personally. 

It's interesting to me that this is widely seen as male perpetrated sexism, though. It's essentially no skin off of mens' noses whether or not DSD athletes compete as women or as men. The IAAF efforts to establish clear, scientifically based rules could have an element of paternalistic gatekeeping but it's primarily driven by the simmering discontent of the other women these DSD athletes are competing against who didn't feel the previous status quo was fair to them.

I disagree, this is very important for male athletes.  If a man has testosterone level readings in the range of female athletes, he is at the same disadvantage competing against other men that the IAAF is claiming other women have competing against Semenya.  He should therefore be able to compete against his equals (women).

But aren't there other identifying factors between male/female such as genitalia and chromosomes? If he met all of the "female" qualifications I think he would be allowed to compete as a woman.

For the record I know very little about this particular case but it does sound like Semenaya has been treated unfairly. Is testosterone level the only justification they've used to disqualify her? That seems absurd.

On the other hand I don't follow the logic in your argument that this is sexism because a man with genetically favorable attributes doesn't receive the same treatment. It's not like there's another category Michael Phelps could be moved into based on his body composition. If he was genetically part dolphin, well then you may have a point.

The other identifying factors don't matter.  As mentioned, Semenya was examined, found to be a woman, and is being denied ability to compete based solely upon her testosterone reading.  The IAAF is arguing that testosterone matters more than all the other factors.  If that's the case . . . then men with low testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's races.  After all, it would be unfair for them to compete against men with higher testosterone.

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:


https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

I just want to clarify/point out that the article I posted did not "hint at" this. It STATED it.

And the opinion piece you posted as a response, with the click-baity title "What no one is telling you about Caster Semenya..." is clearly meant to strongly suggest that people are trying to hide this. Which, um, no.

The original article posted here did not mention it directly, it used the term DSD. The NY Times article referenced in the opinion piece I linked to did not mention it. Lots of people (myself included) based their arguments solely on testosterone levels based off omissions in easily found articles.

A lot of people wont read or will skim the article you posted. It still mentions that she was affected by the DSD rulings on 46 XY (which still seemed to include the umbrella of other issues like normal XX morphology with elevated testosterone) but its poorly spelled out so I googled it to rule out ambiguity. I posted the article for clarification. The title alone may cause another commenter here to read and understand the exact dilemma who may have otherwise missed it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzy math]

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:

https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

So why did IAAF limit it only to the 400m through the 1 mile track races? Why not the 100m? Why not swimming? Is it because they are specifically discriminating against one specific athlete?

And the "elite athlete" argument you've made could be said about those women that Semenya beats. They simply aren't elite enough to compete with her. In other words it would be like saying "Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people all more elite athletes should be forced to have my overweight physical attributes"?

In one of the articles they provide scientific reasoning for results differences by distance. Some races were found to be statistically different, others not.

Im not agreeing or disagreeing with the ruling, just trying to educate you. Perhaps it hasn’t come up in swimming because no one has competed who was found to have been affected.

For further clarity, I disagree with anyone having to submit to genetic or hormone testing. Its a shame that doping has led us to this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kris]

Biology is certainly messy, but the basic male/female distinctions hold true for 99% of people. The small minority with these intersex conditions defy these simple categories and science is still working to understand what this means in terms of athletic performance and fairness in elite competitions. As long as there are separate athletic categories for women there will inevitably have to be rules about where the dividing line is drawn, and some percentage of intersex athletes (even some raised as and living as women) will inevitably fall on the "too male" side of the line, wherever it is eventually ends up. The cultural and athletically relevant biological definitions of "woman" are not identical and are not going to overlap exactly.

I think we're basically seeing the real time unfolding of an imperfect, emotionally charged, (and yes, potentially sexist/paternalistic/corrupt) effort to create scientifically valid distinctions that result in the least amount of unfairness to both DSD athletes and those they're competing against.  I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for Semenya and the others who find themselves in the disputed territory just trying to have a career amid the shifting standards and sometimes appallingly shabby treatment of them personally. 

It's interesting to me that this is widely seen as male perpetrated sexism, though. It's essentially no skin off of mens' noses whether or not DSD athletes compete as women or as men. The IAAF efforts to establish clear, scientifically based rules could have an element of paternalistic gatekeeping but it's primarily driven by the simmering discontent of the other women these DSD athletes are competing against who didn't feel the previous status quo was fair to them.

I disagree, this is very important for male athletes.  If a man has testosterone level readings in the range of female athletes, he is at the same disadvantage competing against other men that the IAAF is claiming other women have competing against Semenya.  He should therefore be able to compete against his equals (women).

But aren't there other identifying factors between male/female such as genitalia and chromosomes? If he met all of the "female" qualifications I think he would be allowed to compete as a woman.

For the record I know very little about this particular case but it does sound like Semenaya has been treated unfairly. Is testosterone level the only justification they've used to disqualify her? That seems absurd.

On the other hand I don't follow the logic in your argument that this is sexism because a man with genetically favorable attributes doesn't receive the same treatment. It's not like there's another category Michael Phelps could be moved into based on his body composition. If he was genetically part dolphin, well then you may have a point.

The other identifying factors don't matter.  As mentioned, Semenya was examined, found to be a woman, and is being denied ability to compete based solely upon her testosterone reading.  The IAAF is arguing that testosterone matters more than all the other factors.  If that's the case . . . then men with low testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's races.  After all, it would be unfair for them to compete against men with higher testosterone.

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:


https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

I just want to clarify/point out that the article I posted did not "hint at" this. It STATED it.

And the opinion piece you posted as a response, with the click-baity title "What no one is telling you about Caster Semenya..." is clearly meant to strongly suggest that people are trying to hide this. Which, um, no.

The original article posted here did not mention it directly, it used the term DSD. The NY Times article referenced in the opinion piece I linked to did not mention it. Lots of people (myself included) based their arguments solely on testosterone levels based off omissions in easily found articles.

A lot of people wont read or will skim the article you posted. It still mentions that she was affected by the DSD rulings on 46 XY (which still seemed to include the umbrella of other issues like normal XX morphology with elevated testosterone) but its poorly spelled out so I googled it to rule out ambiguity. I posted the article for clarification. The title alone may cause another commenter here to read and understand the exact dilemma who may have otherwise missed it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It mentioned "DSD XY." And explained it.

The fact that people might skim the article doesn't mean that it wasn't being clear.

From the article:

[fuzzy math]

Biology is certainly messy, but the basic male/female distinctions hold true for 99% of people. The small minority with these intersex conditions defy these simple categories and science is still working to understand what this means in terms of athletic performance and fairness in elite competitions. As long as there are separate athletic categories for women there will inevitably have to be rules about where the dividing line is drawn, and some percentage of intersex athletes (even some raised as and living as women) will inevitably fall on the "too male" side of the line, wherever it is eventually ends up. The cultural and athletically relevant biological definitions of "woman" are not identical and are not going to overlap exactly.

I think we're basically seeing the real time unfolding of an imperfect, emotionally charged, (and yes, potentially sexist/paternalistic/corrupt) effort to create scientifically valid distinctions that result in the least amount of unfairness to both DSD athletes and those they're competing against.  I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for Semenya and the others who find themselves in the disputed territory just trying to have a career amid the shifting standards and sometimes appallingly shabby treatment of them personally. 

It's interesting to me that this is widely seen as male perpetrated sexism, though. It's essentially no skin off of mens' noses whether or not DSD athletes compete as women or as men. The IAAF efforts to establish clear, scientifically based rules could have an element of paternalistic gatekeeping but it's primarily driven by the simmering discontent of the other women these DSD athletes are competing against who didn't feel the previous status quo was fair to them.

I disagree, this is very important for male athletes.  If a man has testosterone level readings in the range of female athletes, he is at the same disadvantage competing against other men that the IAAF is claiming other women have competing against Semenya.  He should therefore be able to compete against his equals (women).

But aren't there other identifying factors between male/female such as genitalia and chromosomes? If he met all of the "female" qualifications I think he would be allowed to compete as a woman.

For the record I know very little about this particular case but it does sound like Semenaya has been treated unfairly. Is testosterone level the only justification they've used to disqualify her? That seems absurd.

On the other hand I don't follow the logic in your argument that this is sexism because a man with genetically favorable attributes doesn't receive the same treatment. It's not like there's another category Michael Phelps could be moved into based on his body composition. If he was genetically part dolphin, well then you may have a point.

The other identifying factors don't matter.  As mentioned, Semenya was examined, found to be a woman, and is being denied ability to compete based solely upon her testosterone reading.  The IAAF is arguing that testosterone matters more than all the other factors.  If that's the case . . . then men with low testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's races.  After all, it would be unfair for them to compete against men with higher testosterone.

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:


https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

I just want to clarify/point out that the article I posted did not "hint at" this. It STATED it.

And the opinion piece you posted as a response, with the click-baity title "What no one is telling you about Caster Semenya..." is clearly meant to strongly suggest that people are trying to hide this. Which, um, no.

The original article posted here did not mention it directly, it used the term DSD. The NY Times article referenced in the opinion piece I linked to did not mention it. Lots of people (myself included) based their arguments solely on testosterone levels based off omissions in easily found articles.

A lot of people wont read or will skim the article you posted. It still mentions that she was affected by the DSD rulings on 46 XY (which still seemed to include the umbrella of other issues like normal XX morphology with elevated testosterone) but its poorly spelled out so I googled it to rule out ambiguity. I posted the article for clarification. The title alone may cause another commenter here to read and understand the exact dilemma who may have otherwise missed it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It mentioned "DSD XY." And explained it.

The fact that people might skim the article doesn't mean that it wasn't being clear.

From the article:

Thank you for telling me that my interpretation required no further reading. Its amazing how I can tell you that prior poor reporting on the subject caused me to want to seek out exact clarity on a subject, and your response is essentially NOPE.

Does it make you feel big to get into the multitudes of pissing matches that you engage in on this forum?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kris]

Biology is certainly messy, but the basic male/female distinctions hold true for 99% of people. The small minority with these intersex conditions defy these simple categories and science is still working to understand what this means in terms of athletic performance and fairness in elite competitions. As long as there are separate athletic categories for women there will inevitably have to be rules about where the dividing line is drawn, and some percentage of intersex athletes (even some raised as and living as women) will inevitably fall on the "too male" side of the line, wherever it is eventually ends up. The cultural and athletically relevant biological definitions of "woman" are not identical and are not going to overlap exactly.

I think we're basically seeing the real time unfolding of an imperfect, emotionally charged, (and yes, potentially sexist/paternalistic/corrupt) effort to create scientifically valid distinctions that result in the least amount of unfairness to both DSD athletes and those they're competing against.  I have nothing but sympathy and admiration for Semenya and the others who find themselves in the disputed territory just trying to have a career amid the shifting standards and sometimes appallingly shabby treatment of them personally. 

It's interesting to me that this is widely seen as male perpetrated sexism, though. It's essentially no skin off of mens' noses whether or not DSD athletes compete as women or as men. The IAAF efforts to establish clear, scientifically based rules could have an element of paternalistic gatekeeping but it's primarily driven by the simmering discontent of the other women these DSD athletes are competing against who didn't feel the previous status quo was fair to them.

I disagree, this is very important for male athletes.  If a man has testosterone level readings in the range of female athletes, he is at the same disadvantage competing against other men that the IAAF is claiming other women have competing against Semenya.  He should therefore be able to compete against his equals (women).

But aren't there other identifying factors between male/female such as genitalia and chromosomes? If he met all of the "female" qualifications I think he would be allowed to compete as a woman.

For the record I know very little about this particular case but it does sound like Semenaya has been treated unfairly. Is testosterone level the only justification they've used to disqualify her? That seems absurd.

On the other hand I don't follow the logic in your argument that this is sexism because a man with genetically favorable attributes doesn't receive the same treatment. It's not like there's another category Michael Phelps could be moved into based on his body composition. If he was genetically part dolphin, well then you may have a point.

The other identifying factors don't matter.  As mentioned, Semenya was examined, found to be a woman, and is being denied ability to compete based solely upon her testosterone reading.  The IAAF is arguing that testosterone matters more than all the other factors.  If that's the case . . . then men with low testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's races.  After all, it would be unfair for them to compete against men with higher testosterone.

I read the article posted by Kris on Slate and something in it hinted towards Semenya having different genetics so I googled it and found this:


https://www.letsrun.com/news/2019/05/what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-caster-semenya-she-has-xy-chromosomes/

So it appears she has XY chromosomes. It makes sense in light of their ruling (which seemed ridiculous based off of testosterone levels only). Changes my opinion. Its still a really tough situation and a grey area. There are lots of intersex people out there (whether or not they exhibit the opposite sex's genetalia). Jamie Lee Curtis is a prime example (born XY but had Y inactivation). It doesn't make her (or any of the runners) any less of a woman. It does however really muddy the waters about fairness in sports. Yes she probably has an unfair advantage. Yes other athletes may be at a disadvantage. I don't know that there's a right answer. Again, I go back to the fact that historically no one was able to test for this and we have 100 years of Olympic records that may have been made by intersex athletes. So how do we level the playing field, and history to account for any possibility? Why should Semenya be the only one punished? I don't know what the right answer is. She should be allowed to compete. Perhaps the testosterone drugs are the most fair way. I can't say because I'm not in her situation.

GuitarStv, I think your argument is silly because only elite athletes are able to train. A male who is unable to achieve a proper time result in a race is not going to be able to petition to run with females. They're going to be told they're not elite athletes. Should I complain that since I'm overweight and can't run elite times that I should have my own special Olympics for overweight people?

I just want to clarify/point out that the article I posted did not "hint at" this. It STATED it.

And the opinion piece you posted as a response, with the click-baity title "What no one is telling you about Caster Semenya..." is clearly meant to strongly suggest that people are trying to hide this. Which, um, no.

The original article posted here did not mention it directly, it used the term DSD. The NY Times article referenced in the opinion piece I linked to did not mention it. Lots of people (myself included) based their arguments solely on testosterone levels based off omissions in easily found articles.

A lot of people wont read or will skim the article you posted. It still mentions that she was affected by the DSD rulings on 46 XY (which still seemed to include the umbrella of other issues like normal XX morphology with elevated testosterone) but its poorly spelled out so I googled it to rule out ambiguity. I posted the article for clarification. The title alone may cause another commenter here to read and understand the exact dilemma who may have otherwise missed it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It mentioned "DSD XY." And explained it.

The fact that people might skim the article doesn't mean that it wasn't being clear.

From the article:

Thank you for telling me that my interpretation required no further reading. Its amazing how I can tell you that prior poor reporting on the subject caused me to want to seek out exact clarity on a subject, and your response is essentially NOPE.

Does it make you feel big to get into the multitudes of pissing matches that you engage in on this forum?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow. Okay, I withdraw.

[Samuel]

Eh, not really. Testosterone levels alone don't determine inclusion in women's sports, they're being looked at as one relevant differentiator to distinguish between the intersex women who can fairly compete with non-intersex women and those who can't fairly competing with them (and currently only in specific events where the advantages have enough supporting evidence to warrant it). There has to be a point somewhere on the spectrum that maximizes overall fairness, but finding it is going to be messing and unfair to someone (likely the intersex athletes nearest that as yet undetermined point).

A man with testosterone levels in the range of female athletes would have an underlying medical problem and would be allowed to undergo testosterone replacement therapies to get them back into the healthy range. An intersex woman with several times the testosterone of their female competitors is now going to be asked to reduce their testosterone levels via medication or surgery to be closer to the typical range for women if they want to compete against women, OR change to compete against men. Specific individuals aside, this just doesn't seem inherently unfair to me if you look at the whole picture and trust the integrity of the process. It's reasonable to question the methods by which these rules are arrived at but the rules will have to be created, unless women's only sports are done away with completely.

I don't follow this.  I thought we already had men and women split apart for fairness.  That's the point that maximizes fairness.  Now you're saying we should have men, super athletic women, and then regular women divisions or worse - still a men's and women's but the super athletic women with high testosterone just get screwed?  A woman is being told she can't compete as a woman.  You're saying the outrage is from less freakishly athletic women who want to win but are losing to the women that have more testosterone naturally occurring?  Yeah nah, I don't have sympathy for those other women (really it doesn't matter where the outrage is coming from fueling this IAAF decision, whether it's sexist men or women competing that have lower testosterone).

Her best time in the 800m (the event she has won 2 Olympic gold medals in) is 14+ seconds slower than the best men's time (a HUGE amount of time in this event that last just over 100 seconds for men).  i.e. She wouldn't even be on the last straightaway while the top men are already finishing.  This is not a question of letting her compete against other men or those at that certain level or really a matter of fairness.  She'd get slaughtered.  I really wish the sexes were more equitable and we could have a single classification open to everyone but just not the case.  She is a woman, she should be able to race against other women.  You do seem to acknowledge she is a woman with the use of pronouns, but think the term 'woman' as it pertains to athletics needs to be redefined.  Guess we'll agree to disagree.

I'm basically saying that 1) the cultural, medical, and athletic definitions of "woman" are not 100% congruent, 2) as long as we have gender segregated sports (specifically women only events from which men are excluded) then tough decisions will have to be made to as to specific criteria and boundaries for inclusion, 3) that these boundaries will almost certainly divide the intersex population at some point along the spectrum into those that are able to fairly compete with women and those that aren't, and 4) that moving the boundary one way or another will inevitably involve being unfair to someone, either the specific individuals on the bubble or the rest of the field they're competing against.

Having a vagina and being raised as a girl are very valid criteria, but is that really sufficient? What if they have a vagina and testes? A vagina and a penis? Any of the many other possible permutations? Apparently .04 to .07% of American births have genitalia ambiguous enough that special gender development doctors have to be brought in. At some point the doctors and the parents are choosing to raise them as one gender or the other (and the individual may choose to change it themselves later in life), so there's also ambiguity in the "raised as a" criteria. I'm just trying to point out that as long as there are women's only events the line between "allowed to compete in women's events" and "not allowed to compete in women's events" will run right through this landscape.

So it just doesn't strike me as inherently outrageous to try and use testosterone levels as part of the criteria for inclusion in women's athletics as long as you're attempting to do so honestly and with sound science. It's a known performance enhancer (at least in some circumstances/sports) and alluringly quantifiable. Yes, it's being "naturally produced" but if it's being naturally produced in amounts well beyond what any non-intersex woman is capable of producing why would that not be a possible unfair advantage in a restrictive sporting event?

And as a thought experiment... what if we were talking about boxing instead of sprinting? Are we just as comfortable saying "let her compete" if Semenya was a fighter using that extra musculature and bone density to punch other women in the head, possibly inflicting life long damage? Would we so quickly discount the concerns of the rest of the field?

[Kyle Schuant]

Since they only apply this rule in the events she was most famous for, when other events (like sprints) are more obvious logical locations for it, the IAAF rule seems clearly targeted at her though. That's unfair in itself.

Because she's an almost unique case. Intersex and transgender appear in less than 2% of the population, but far less than 2% of athletes, and each particular condition is quite rare.

The IAAF applied this ruling to particular events because with their association with the IOOC they can't make it a blanket thing.

Ciswomen natural testosterone levels = 0.24-2.4nmol/L
Cismale = 6.9-40nmol/L, average is 12 or so.
Below 6-8nmol/L in young men is considered a medical condition requiring treatment, this varies from country to country.

A ciswoman with a measured level of 5+ nmol/L is considered to have a positive doping test; with twice the highest naturally-occurring amount, it's obvious she had some injections. 

Currently, a transwoman who has identified as a woman for a couple of years and whose T is under 10nmol/L is allowed to compete. So there's a gap between ciswomen allowed up to 5, and transwomen allowed 5-10. Transwomen are allowed to have T levels in excess of what would cause concern in a cismale. In other words, transwomen are allowed to have testosterone levels considered normal and healthy for a young cismale.

This intersex athlete falls in that gap. Logically, both intersex and transwomen should be required to have under the same limit as ciswomen, 5nmol/L. However, the IOOC did not choose 5, but 10. Why? Because it actually takes several years for transwomen to reach that level, and some never do. So if they'd chosen 5 it would essentially be a lifetime ban on transwomen, since it's pretty hard to keep up your motivation to train at top level for years and years without competition. But if they choose 10 it's just a couple of years.

The IAAF believes that transwomen and intersex should be held to the same standard as ciswomen, under 5nmol/L. The IOOC, whose considerations are not just fair competition but also inclusivity and image, says 10. Unfortunately for Semenya, she's come between two systems and two standards.

Of course some will argue that exact testosterone levels don't make that much difference, and that's why transwomen are allowed higher levels. But if they don't matter then why can't ciswomen have higher levels? And why do we spend all that money and drama on drug testing?

For fairness, either all women, whether ciswomen, transwomen or intersex, need to have testosterone under 5nmol/L, or they should all be allowed to have it under 10nmol/L. In other words, if we allow transwomen and intersex to have 10, then ciswomen should be allowed to use anabolic steroids up to 10nmol/L.

Fairness in sport, as in other areas, means the same standards are applied to all people.

I would add that this is not about respect for transwomen and transmen or the intersexed. It is about fair competition. In sports you can get a therapeutic use exemption (TEU) for certain drugs, which is why so many swimmers are asthmatics, honest. When a guy's old his testosterone drops, which can lead to loss of muscle mass, erectile dysfunction, frequent illness and depression. This can be treated with testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). Can a Master's Athlete get a TEU for TRT? No, the rules specifically prohibit that. To the master's athlete with low T and general misery who gets TRT, the sporting world says, "we have all respect for you and all sympathy for your medical condition, but you cannot compete."

It can likewise be for transwomen and the intersexed. A single standard - or 5, or 10, or whatever - needs to be applied to all but cismales. Excluding transwomen and the intersexed with testosterone levels above the levels allowed for ciswomen does not mean a lack of respect for transwomen and the intersexed any more than excluding master's athletes on TRT means a lack of respect for older people.

This means some people will miss out on competition. Master's athletes have missed out on competition, transwomen and the intersexed can, too. But competing in sport is not a human right.

[GuitarStv]

Since they only apply this rule in the events she was most famous for, when other events (like sprints) are more obvious logical locations for it, the IAAF rule seems clearly targeted at her though. That's unfair in itself.

Because she's an almost unique case. Intersex and transgender appear in less than 2% of the population, but far less than 2% of athletes, and each particular condition is quite rare.

Brings up an interesting point though.  If being intersex was a huge advantage in athletics, wouldn't you expect the opposite to be true?  Much higher representation of intersex women beating the pants off their non-intersex competitors?  That's half of the argument for Semenya being banned . . . because otherwise the intersex women will take over all women's sports . . .

[tralfamadorian]

Since they only apply this rule in the events she was most famous for, when other events (like sprints) are more obvious logical locations for it, the IAAF rule seems clearly targeted at her though. That's unfair in itself.

Because she's an almost unique case. Intersex and transgender appear in less than 2% of the population, but far less than 2% of athletes, and each particular condition is quite rare.

Brings up an interesting point though.  If being intersex was a huge advantage in athletics, wouldn't you expect the opposite to be true?  Much higher representation of intersex women beating the pants off their non-intersex competitors?  That's half of the argument for Semenya being banned . . . because otherwise the intersex women will take over all women's sports . . .

In the article linked by fuzzymath above, the author states

it’s believed that all three of the medallists in the 2016 Olympic women’s 800 – Caster Semenya, Francine Niyonsaba and Margaret Wambui — are intersex.

However, they do use the qualifier "it's believed" and do not provide supporting data and I did not do additional research to verify or not.

[BicycleB]

@Kyle Schuant, that's the best explanation I've heard yet.

After reading the Let's Run article, plus your remarks, I feel like I finally at least understand the situation.

Thanks for the IOOC vs IAAF remarks.

[Kyle Schuant]

Brings up an interesting point though.  If being intersex was a huge advantage in athletics, wouldn't you expect the opposite to be true?  Much higher representation of intersex women beating the pants off their non-intersex competitors?  That's half of the argument for Semenya being banned . . . because otherwise the intersex women will take over all women's sports . . .

Not really. Of course there are many intersex conditions, not all of which provide an advantage, but let's set that aside for the moment. Most intersex people in the West are aware of their state, and either take medical steps to assert either of the full genders, or are stuck in between and - like transexuals - busy grappling with all the emotional and psychological issues of their not-simple status in a society expecting something simple.

Semenya was from a conservative Christian background in a country with poor access to medical facilities, and so was unaware of her state until tested. So there'll be people like her in the West, but as I said they've either chosen one sex or they're dealing with personal dramas; and outside the West there'll be others like her, but they generally won't have access to training facilities, either. Whatever your gender in the Sudan you're not going down to the swimming pool at their Olympic training centre, because they don't have one.

It's well to consider PCOS. This is a condition women can have which is somewhat negative for life overall, but good for athletics - as they have naturally high testosterone levels, tending to the high side of normal. And indeed, PCOS is over-represented in women's sports [for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19461542]. However, so far as I know only Western countries' athletes have been studied for this prevalence. It makes sense that in countries with well-developed systems for building up sportspeople, you'd get that, in other countries, less so.

As well, remember that people don't always have an interest in things they have a talent in. Indeed, in some cases talent can be a drawback. I happen to train people for a living, and I see this all the time: the one who does very well at the start often wusses out a few months later, the one who does badly at the start keeps plugging along and eventually surpasses anything the talented one ever managed. It's like that kid in high school who could get straight As without studying, they get to university and might get through first year, but definitely bomb out in second year. They're just not used to things being hard, so as soon as it's hard, they bail. Meanwhile their average intelligence fellow students plod away, pass and graduate.

Talented athletes can be like that, whatever the reason for their talent.

Here's an article covering some of the issues. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/3/828/2839059

I'm not keen on public discussion of particular cases, because it's obviously not going to be comfortable for the person involved. This is one reason I like consistent standards for all, we shouldn't have one T level for transwomen and another for ciswomen. Unfortunately there are other factors in the IOOC's decisions. A system controlled by old white guys dogged by corruption scandals, and (as old white guys) thought of as sexist, racist, etc - well, they'll go out of their way to do things to appear less corrupt, less racist, etc - even if it's detrimental for the sports involved.