Semenya loses IAAF appeal . . . thoughts?

[GuitarStv]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/48102479

This is a weird case.  Caster Semenya is a woman.  She was raised a girl.  She has a vagina.  Like most elite level athletes, she has unusual physiology that give her an advantage in her sport.  In her case, she was born with naturally higher levels of testosterone than are typical for a woman.  As a result of this ruling, if she wants to compete in future sporting events she will be required to take medication to unnaturally reduce her testosterone levels to those set by the IAAF.  Any other woman with naturally high levels of testosterone will also be required to do this.

I can kinda see both sides of this case . . . I get that the vast majority of women naturally have lower testosterone levels, and that they will probably lose against someone born with the physiology that Semenya has.  But to me, this is true of any sport.  Some men have higher levels of testosterone . . . and they invariably do better in sport than those with lower readings.  We're not telling male athletes that they have to change their physiology to meet an arbitrary number, instead they're celebrated for their gifts.  It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that we apply a different rule for women's sport.

I mean, look at Micheal Phelps.  That dude is a genetic freak . . . optimized for swimming.  He has an unusually long thin torso, a disproportionate 6'7" armspan, short legs, size 14 flippers for feet, and hypermobile ankles.  Every part of that build is an unfair advantage for swimming . . . and he used it to crush competition.  Why didn't we force Phelps to undergo surgery to neutralize his natural gifts the same way that Semenya is being forced to undergo chemical therapy?

[PoutineLover]

The whole ruling is discriminatory bullshit. She can't help the way she was born, and almost by definition, all high level athletes have superior physical advantages. The fact that it only applies to some events and not others is also proof that it's based on bullshit science. She should not have to alter her natural physiology to bring herself down to a level to compete. This basically says that intersex women are not allowed to compete with their natural bodies and are unequal in sports.

[SunnyDays]

But that's the thing - if you're truly intersex, you're neither male nor female.  One was simply selected for you early in life.  She does have an unfair advantage over other females, no?

[ematicic]

I could see a safety concern in contact sports like MMA and boxing but natural is natural. Tough situation for this young lady for sure. The Williams sisters dominated female tennis for years and although their strength was a contributing factor, they are both very talented and hard working.

[BicycleB]

I can kinda see both sides of this case . . . I get that the vast majority of women naturally have lower testosterone levels, and that they will probably lose against someone born with the physiology that Semenya has.  But to me, this is true of any sport.  Some men have higher levels of testosterone . . . and they invariably do better in sport than those with lower readings.  We're not telling male athletes that they have to change their physiology to meet an arbitrary number, instead they're celebrated for their gifts.  It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that we apply a different rule for women's sport.

Yet the very concept of women's sport is based on the assumption that women have some disadvantage that requires a separate category. If we simply let all athletes have the natural level of testorone for the bodies, shouldn't we just have all the athletes compete together? Semenya wouldn't be anywhere near Olympic gold if she competed against men (would she?).

If gender is a nonbinary spectrum, and we wish to have a binary division for the purpose of sport, the binary division implicitly requires that a line be drawn somewhere. I sympathize with Semenya and anyone else in a similar position, and I certainly wouldn't want any hormones to change my natural biochemistry. I also sympathize with the athletes that she beats. It's not clear to me how to have a system that's fair to everyone.

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.

[GuitarStv]

But that's the thing - if you're truly intersex, you're neither male nor female.  One was simply selected for you early in life.  She does have an unfair advantage over other females, no?

You're assuming that she was a hermaphrodite who was altered by a doctor during her young life to be female.  As far as I'm aware, this is not the case.

Elite male athletes in many strength related sports tend to have higher testosterone than the general population.  This is an unfair advantage over other males too, right?

[GuitarStv]

I can kinda see both sides of this case . . . I get that the vast majority of women naturally have lower testosterone levels, and that they will probably lose against someone born with the physiology that Semenya has.  But to me, this is true of any sport.  Some men have higher levels of testosterone . . . and they invariably do better in sport than those with lower readings.  We're not telling male athletes that they have to change their physiology to meet an arbitrary number, instead they're celebrated for their gifts.  It strikes me as fundamentally unfair that we apply a different rule for women's sport.

Yet the very concept of women's sport is based on the assumption that women have some disadvantage that requires a separate category. If we simply let all athletes have the natural level of testorone for the bodies, shouldn't we just have all the athletes compete together? Semenya wouldn't be anywhere near Olympic gold if she competed against men (would she?).

If gender is a nonbinary spectrum, and we wish to have a binary division for the purpose of sport, the binary division implicitly requires that a line be drawn somewhere. I sympathize with Semenya and anyone else in a similar position, and I certainly wouldn't want any hormones to change my natural biochemistry. I also sympathize with the athletes that she beats. It's not clear to me how to have a system that's fair to everyone.

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.

I think that we're going to have gender differentiated sports, we need a very clear definition of what 'male' and what 'female' is.  Semenya has been tested by the IAAF in the past and met their definition of 'female'.  Now they appear to be changing their definition of what female is in order to exclude her from the sports she competes in. . . and the fact that the rules are inconsistently applied only to the sports that she competes in is pretty messed up.

Women like Semenya are pretty rare.  I don't think we're going to be overrun with women exactly like her in sport . . . so she should be treated the way that any other biologically gifted female athlete is treated.  This is quite different than telling men and women that they have to compete together.

[ematicic]

Yet the very concept of women's sport is based on the assumption that women have some disadvantage that requires a separate category. If we simply let all athletes have the natural level of testorone for the bodies, shouldn't we just have all the athletes compete together? Semenya wouldn't be anywhere near Olympic gold if she competed against men (would she?).

If gender is a nonbinary spectrum, and we wish to have a binary division for the purpose of sport, the binary division implicitly requires that a line be drawn somewhere. I sympathize with Semenya and anyone else in a similar position, and I certainly wouldn't want any hormones to change my natural biochemistry. I also sympathize with the athletes that she beats. It's not clear to me how to have a system that's fair to everyone.

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.

I worked for 3 years as an analyst for the Marine Corps physical fitness division. We went through the female integration into the Ground Combat Arms jobs and looked at the physical fitness parameters that determined promotion, and job assignments. Very tough, and completely agree.... The fairness aspect is a huge challenge. Women are not equal, they are not less or more, but nobody can deny that there are physiological differences. If the standard is the same across the board the female attrition rates skyrocket and fewer get promoted. For the ground combat jobs we had pass / fail strength standards to determine certain capabilities in physically demanding jobs such as Tank maintenance. This was very eye opening, as Congress was looking to pass "fair" standards, that really seemed to be an unattainable goal.

[Samuel]

There are all kinds of intersex conditions resulting in a wide variety of external and internal morphological and hormonal states. For example it's entirely possible that an intersex woman with female external genitalia also has internal testes that result in much higher levels of testosterone than a typical woman. It's not immediately clear to me that her identifying and being raised as female should automatically and unquestioningly allow her entry into women's only competitions where that specific biology conveys a clear advantage over other women. If you're going to have sports that exclude men the line has to be drawn somewhere, and hormonal levels are one quantitative place to introduce a distinction.

I sympathize with (and admire) Semenya and the other trailblazers who are forcing the sporting world to have these messy conversations, they suffer the most inconsistencies and indignities. But I also sympathize with the women they're competing against. They have college scholarships, places on Olympic teams, and medals on the line too, and deserve a fair competition.

We're going to see a lot more of these stories as this gets worked out.

[GuitarStv]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

[Kris]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

It's just such an odd thing, when you think about it, to separate sporting events into "men's" and "women's." I mean, why?

Because presence of vaginas or penises are important for competition?

We have these essentialist criteria that assume "man" and "woman" are immutable things. And that they mean something. And sure, there's a percentage of people who fall into certain ranges. But there are tons of people who fall outside them. And cases like Semenya's really point out the limits, and in some ways the arbitrariness, of the way we have created these categories.

How should we determine who can compete in the future? Testosterone levels? Estrogen levels? Presence of uterus/ovaries/testicles/penis? Absence of uterus/ovaries/testicles/penis? Breast size? Height? Weight? Something else?

Each one of these possibilities will present problems. And every way we try to class people by saying "men are ___" and "women are ___" as if they are actually neat, clear categories will force us to see that there are people who fall outside of them.

Maybe someday, that will teach us something. I hope so, anyway.

[GuitarStv]

I'm torn on that point.  The top women in the world under-perform (don't lift as much, run as fast, hit as hard, etc.) when directly compared to the top men for the vast majority of sports.  My concern with removing gender based limits on sport is that I'd think it would be a significant de-motivator for women in athletics.  Would you be as interested in watching the Olympics if 99% of the athletes were men?

[Kris]

I'm torn on that point.  The top women in the world under-perform (don't lift as much, run as fast, hit as hard, etc.) when directly compared to the top men for the vast majority of sports.  My concern with removing gender based limits on sport is that I'd think it would be a significant de-motivator for women in athletics.  Would you be as interested in watching the Olympics if 99% of the athletes were men?

I'm not as sure as you are that 99% of top athletes would be men. There are plenty of sports where women could do just as well if not better.

But I don't really care all that much about sports. What I more care about is how wedded we are in our society to essentialist notions of what men and women "are," and how that shows up in so many facets of our lives. And how, when nature shows us the limits of our thinking time and time again, we're just not all that good at wrapping our heads around the lesson, and we tend to just go back to, "but on average women are... and men are..."

[Milkshake]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

In this line of thought, would we allow men with lower levels of testosterone to take hormone therapy to put them within range? Can everyone take hormones to put them at the maximum allowable limit?

I think the limit on her is complete BS, and was imposed because several complainypants didn't think natural gifts were fair. Yet they themselves as top-level athletes clearly have natural advantages over the average person.

Also, RE: her gender, NPR said that after they tested her for drugs and hormone treatments, they did "invasive sex verification tests" that proved she is in fact a woman.

[Kris]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

In this line of thought, would we allow men with lower levels of testosterone to take hormone therapy to put them within range? Can everyone take hormones to put them at the maximum allowable limit?

I think the limit on her is complete BS, and was imposed because several complainypants didn't think natural gifts were fair. Yet they themselves as top-level athletes clearly have natural advantages over the average person.

Also, RE: her gender, NPR said that after they tested her for drugs and hormone treatments, they did "invasive sex verification tests" that proved she is in fact a woman.

This kind of shit is monstrous. Like seriously. Where are we as a culture that this seems at all normal that an athlete would have to submit to having her genitals poked and prodded to determine whether they deserve to compete in a certain sports category? How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina? Honestly????  And even worse, she HAS one, and they still say even though she IS a woman, the discrimination is "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" to protect "the integrity of female athletics".

So, the concept of "women's" sports is an absolute bullshit ruse, basically. Because the definition of what a woman even is has to be completely twisted around to not allow her to compete.

[SunnyDays]

Well, it would be interesting to know how far outside the "normal" range of testosterone for women she is.  A little?  A lot?  A Google article says that her hormone level would allow a 5 -7 second advantage in a 300 metre race.  That sounds like quite a bit to me.

[Kris]

Well, it would be interesting to know how far outside the "normal" range of testosterone for women she is.  A little?  A lot?  A Google article says that her hormone level would allow a 5 -7 second advantage in a 300 metre race.  That sounds like quite a bit to me.

Right. But does that mean she's not a woman? I mean... WTF???

[GuitarStv]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

In this line of thought, would we allow men with lower levels of testosterone to take hormone therapy to put them within range? Can everyone take hormones to put them at the maximum allowable limit?

I think the limit on her is complete BS, and was imposed because several complainypants didn't think natural gifts were fair. Yet they themselves as top-level athletes clearly have natural advantages over the average person.

Also, RE: her gender, NPR said that after they tested her for drugs and hormone treatments, they did "invasive sex verification tests" that proved she is in fact a woman.

This kind of shit is monstrous. Like seriously. Where are we as a culture that this seems at all normal that an athlete would have to submit to having her genitals poked and prodded to determine whether they deserve to compete in a certain sports category? How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina? Honestly????  And even worse, she HAS one, and they still say even though she IS a woman, the discrimination is "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" to protect "the integrity of female athletics".

So, the concept of "women's" sports is an absolute bullshit ruse, basically. Because the definition of what a woman even is has to be completely twisted around to not allow her to compete.

To be fair, I think this ban would have a lot less controversy if she had a penis and no vagina.  :P

[BicycleB]

How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina?

Having a vagina isn't relevant to sports at all. And if I had a vagina, I certainly wouldn't want anyone poking around in it for a sports purpose!

Yet... if there's a separate category for women athletes, what is the criteria for being a woman? Possibly I am an uninformed fool for having thought a vagina was relevant (hopefully not a monster for wondering). I am suspending the thought for now after reading the quote above, but once upon a time I was taught in school that a vagina is a common characteristic of women. So...what are the right criteria, and how should they be assessed?

[fuzzy math]

Well, it would be interesting to know how far outside the "normal" range of testosterone for women she is.  A little?  A lot?  A Google article says that her hormone level would allow a 5 -7 second advantage in a 300 metre race.  That sounds like quite a bit to me.

But she appears to be the only person who this has ever been applied to. Looking back through history there had to have been an athlete somewhere who fit the same DSD category. They were never secretly tested or at risk of having their legacy invalidated.

If someone secretly tested me or asked me to undergo a physical exam to prove who I was, to put me up for public scrutiny and ridicule, I'd be very upset. On the other hand, not submitting and just quitting gives the haters a lot to gossip about. It's a lose lose situation. I feel terribly for her.

[BicycleB]

How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina?

I keep thinking about this (if what I do may be considered thinking). Maybe the reason the issue came up is that progress is happening? As in, during past times, society's binary gender classification was so resolute that no one could challenge the definition, but now gender is viewed by many as more of a spectrum, and therefore there are cases where "who is a woman" becomes a necessary thing to resolve?

[Kris]

How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina?

I keep thinking about this (if what I do may be considered thinking). Maybe the reason the issue came up is that progress is happening? As in, during past times, society's binary gender classification was so resolute that no one could challenge the definition, but now gender is viewed by many as more of a spectrum, and therefore there are cases where "who is a woman" becomes a necessary thing to resolve?

Could be. But let us remember that in this case, she was subjected to invasive testing, found to “be a woman,” and then denied anyway.

[jinga nation]

Women's sports have to abide by rules made by men. They did this shit to Dutee Chand (India) too. So effing stupid.
Would be interesting to see the makeup (male/female and "race") of the CAS and IAAF committees.
Actual report here: https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Executive_Summary__5794_.pdf
No names, as usual. The message coming from behind the curtain, in this century... guess we haven't learned from history.

I guess, born and raised in Africa, I'm shocked, not shocked.

[Kris]

Some pretty damn valid points made in this article.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/caster-semenya-testosterone-gender-appeal-ruling.html

[GuitarStv]

I still think that based on this decision, male weightlifters with natural testosterone above normal male levels should also be required to take hormone therapy to reduce them.  And that men who have testosterone levels in the newly created 'female' range should be allowed to compete in women's running events.

Fair's fair, right?

[elliha]

This case gets to me so much and I frankly see a lot of sexism and probably some racism as well. I cannot see the problem with her competing as this is a natural and rare occurrence in a small number of women who are not all going to be great at any sport anyway. I know of at least one Swedish cross country skier who was allowed to compete with a higher than normal blood count because he could prove that he had this naturally, how is her situation different? We know she didn't get high testosterone levels through cheating. Other people (men) like Phelps were just saluted and congratulated on their luck in the genetic lottery. Phelps was far more dominant in his field than Semenya and even this didn't raise the same concern.

[simonsez]

It stinks.  In a way, they're going backwards.  Check out this excerpt talking about the highly sexist Ancient games - at least their barbaric sex test meant something (I'm not advocating the sex testing and especially not the way it was applied to Semenya, but just saying, at least the Greeks abided by it and would've ruled Semenya is in fact, a woman, something the IAAF is not saying):

"Adult women (those who were married) were prohibited from attending the Olympics by the laws of Ellis (the city that hosted the games). If a female participant was caught in the Olympic stadium, the city of Ellis stated that they were to be thrown into the river from Mount Typaion. (1) This law while harsh and possibly lethal was never recorded as being enforced, and in fact, there is a story of a women who had violated the Olympic game’s law and social norm.

Kallipateira, from a noble family, disguised herself as a trainer to watch her son fight and win the Olympic prize for Boxing. During the award ceremony, Kallipateria rushed out to greet her son and congratulate him. Due to her status, she went unpunished but because of her actions at every Olympics after, trainers had to enter naked (to prove their gender)."

[GuitarStv]

because of her actions at every Olympics after, trainers had to enter naked (to prove their gender)."

That's one way to spice up the opening ceremony for the Olympic games.  :P

[Just Joe]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

In this line of thought, would we allow men with lower levels of testosterone to take hormone therapy to put them within range? Can everyone take hormones to put them at the maximum allowable limit?

I think the limit on her is complete BS, and was imposed because several complainypants didn't think natural gifts were fair. Yet they themselves as top-level athletes clearly have natural advantages over the average person.

Also, RE: her gender, NPR said that after they tested her for drugs and hormone treatments, they did "invasive sex verification tests" that proved she is in fact a woman.

This kind of shit is monstrous. Like seriously. Where are we as a culture that this seems at all normal that an athlete would have to submit to having her genitals poked and prodded to determine whether they deserve to compete in a certain sports category? How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina? Honestly????  And even worse, she HAS one, and they still say even though she IS a woman, the discrimination is "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" to protect "the integrity of female athletics".

So, the concept of "women's" sports is an absolute bullshit ruse, basically. Because the definition of what a woman even is has to be completely twisted around to not allow her to compete.

Let her compete! So she'll be on top of her sport for a few years and then somebody else will come along and beat her best performances. Does anyone wonder if there is a racial aspect to this? There certainly is a gender aspect. How many men undergo these kinds of checks?

[Kris]

Will men who have testosterone levels below the cut-off for women be allowed to compete in women's events?  If not, why . . . since that appears to be the criteria used for judging whether a person is male or female?

In this line of thought, would we allow men with lower levels of testosterone to take hormone therapy to put them within range? Can everyone take hormones to put them at the maximum allowable limit?

I think the limit on her is complete BS, and was imposed because several complainypants didn't think natural gifts were fair. Yet they themselves as top-level athletes clearly have natural advantages over the average person.

Also, RE: her gender, NPR said that after they tested her for drugs and hormone treatments, they did "invasive sex verification tests" that proved she is in fact a woman.

This kind of shit is monstrous. Like seriously. Where are we as a culture that this seems at all normal that an athlete would have to submit to having her genitals poked and prodded to determine whether they deserve to compete in a certain sports category? How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina? Honestly????  And even worse, she HAS one, and they still say even though she IS a woman, the discrimination is "necessary, reasonable and proportionate" to protect "the integrity of female athletics".

So, the concept of "women's" sports is an absolute bullshit ruse, basically. Because the definition of what a woman even is has to be completely twisted around to not allow her to compete.

Let her compete! So she'll be on top of her sport for a few years and then somebody else will come along and beat her best performances. Does anyone wonder if there is a racial aspect to this? There certainly is a gender aspect. How many men undergo these kinds of checks?

The link I posted above argues this. And i think what the author says is pretty compelling. Basically, our sense of what "women" are in sports is pretty racially cast as white, and western. I suggest reading it. Here's a quote that stood out to me:

"When Western athletes transform their bodies by using antigravity treadmills and platelet-rich plasma injections to speed up recovery, that’s considered to be on the “fair” side of the competitive advantage line. It’s hard to reconcile this with a black South African gay female athlete who is trying to compete as she is, without chemically altering her body, and who has been deemed on the “unfair” side."

[Samuel]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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).

[Davnasty]

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.

[seattlecyclone]

In the abstract, I agree with the notion that there does need to be some standard of what a "woman" is when there is a different category of competition for women only, and where the best women cannot reasonably expect to be competitive against the best men.

That said, I'd let her run. Yes, she has some genetic abnormalities that give her an advantage, as do many of the very top athletes in most sports. This idea that someone must take drugs to bring some physical characteristics down into a "normal" range...how far does that lead? Do we force tall people to get their bones shortened? Sounds a bit Harrison Bergeron to me.

[Financial.Velociraptor]

Starting to see this on facebook:

[BicycleB]

How in the fucking hell is it relevant that she has a vagina?

I keep thinking about this (if what I do may be considered thinking). Maybe the reason the issue came up is that progress is happening? As in, during past times, society's binary gender classification was so resolute that no one could challenge the definition, but now gender is viewed by many as more of a spectrum, and therefore there are cases where "who is a woman" becomes a necessary thing to resolve?

Could be. But let us remember that in this case, she was subjected to invasive testing, found to “be a woman,” and then denied anyway.

I do remember. As stated previously, I agree that the denial is unfair to her.

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Samuel]

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).

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.
 

[Davnasty]

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.

That's not my understanding. The argument is that this one factor makes her ineligible, not that it is the only or most relevant factor.

[Gondolin]

trust the integrity of the process.

Tell that to the ghost of Homer Plessy.

[Samuel]

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.

Her specific medical details are (rightly) not publicly known (other than some details unfairly leaked from the sex determination test she was tricked into taking in 2009) so who knows what "found to be a woman" refers to. The kind of testosterone levels they're talking about are far enough outside the typical female range it's widely accepted there would have to be some degree of DSD involved to produce them, likely in the form of internal male tissue (testes) producing all that extra testosterone. Perfectly natural, but not necessarily fair to other female competitors.

[GuitarStv]

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.

Her specific medical details are (rightly) not publicly known (other than some details unfairly leaked from the sex determination test she was tricked into taking in 2009) so who knows what "found to be a woman" refers to. The kind of testosterone levels they're talking about are far enough outside the typical female range it's widely accepted there would have to be some degree of DSD involved to produce them, likely in the form of internal male tissue (testes) producing all that extra testosterone. Perfectly natural, but not necessarily fair to other female competitors.

Were Michael Phelps (perfectly natural) extra range ankle extension flippers fair to other competitors who did not have them?  What steps were made to bring Phelps natural gifts down to the level of other men he was competing with?

[Davnasty]

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.

Her specific medical details are (rightly) not publicly known (other than some details unfairly leaked from the sex determination test she was tricked into taking in 2009) so who knows what "found to be a woman" refers to. The kind of testosterone levels they're talking about are far enough outside the typical female range it's widely accepted there would have to be some degree of DSD involved to produce them, likely in the form of internal male tissue (testes) producing all that extra testosterone. Perfectly natural, but not necessarily fair to other female competitors.

Were Michael Phelps (perfectly natural) extra range ankle extension flippers fair to other competitors who did not have them?  What steps were made to bring Phelps natural gifts down to the level of other men he was competing with?

There are 2 classifications of sex for the purpose of sports, male and female. Did his "flippers" make him less of a male?

[simonsez]

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.

[GuitarStv]

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.

Her specific medical details are (rightly) not publicly known (other than some details unfairly leaked from the sex determination test she was tricked into taking in 2009) so who knows what "found to be a woman" refers to. The kind of testosterone levels they're talking about are far enough outside the typical female range it's widely accepted there would have to be some degree of DSD involved to produce them, likely in the form of internal male tissue (testes) producing all that extra testosterone. Perfectly natural, but not necessarily fair to other female competitors.

Were Michael Phelps (perfectly natural) extra range ankle extension flippers fair to other competitors who did not have them?  What steps were made to bring Phelps natural gifts down to the level of other men he was competing with?

There are 2 classifications of sex for the purpose of sports, male and female. Did his "flippers" make him less of a male?

Yes.  That's exactly what they did . . . since the vast majority of men do not have flippers.  Just as the vast majority of women have lower testosterone levels than Semenya has.

[big_owl]

The comparison to phelps is sort of lame to me.  Both are genetic anomalies to be sure. However, not a person on the planet can go in to a doctor and come out with a lengthened spine, arms, and feet, and go compete in the olympics with his advantage.  On the other hand any woman on the planet with a few thousand dollars can buy the hormones to have Semenya's advantage. As soon as you say that having 3x the testosterone of a normal woman (the figure I read online) is fine for competing then you open the floodgates - why shouldn't every woman take enough testosterone to get their levels right up to the same level as Semenya then?   

[GuitarStv]

The comparison to phelps is sort of lame to me.  Both are genetic anomalies to be sure. However, not a person on the planet can go in to a doctor and come out with a lengthened spine, arms, and feet, and go compete in the olympics with his advantage.  On the other hand any woman on the planet with a few thousand dollars can buy the hormones to have Semenya's advantage. As soon as you say that having 3x the testosterone of a normal woman (the figure I read online) is fine for competing then you open the floodgates - why shouldn't every woman take enough testosterone to get their levels right up to the same level as Semenya then?

OK.  You believe that natural hormones are totally different than natural physical structure for some reason.  Let's roll with that for a second.

By this logic  . . . why shouldn't every man take enough testosterone to get their levels right up to the same level as the highest measured athlete in competition?  Because right now there's significant natural difference between person to person.  The answer of course, is because we decided a while back that athletics was going to be about the competitive difference that naturally occurs between people, not the between the best athletes that doping can provide (yes, let's just ignore the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, and other sporting organizations where performance enhancing drug use is effectively condoned by their testing policies).

[elliha]

The comparison to phelps is sort of lame to me.  Both are genetic anomalies to be sure. However, not a person on the planet can go in to a doctor and come out with a lengthened spine, arms, and feet, and go compete in the olympics with his advantage.  On the other hand any woman on the planet with a few thousand dollars can buy the hormones to have Semenya's advantage. As soon as you say that having 3x the testosterone of a normal woman (the figure I read online) is fine for competing then you open the floodgates - why shouldn't every woman take enough testosterone to get their levels right up to the same level as Semenya then?

I used the example of a cross country skier above who was allowed to have higher blood counts (red blood cells) due to it being his natural level and he was able to prove it. Normally elevated levels suggest doping and is done to improve performance. He probably had a slight advance due to his elevated levels but this was considered acceptable as it was due to natural causes.

[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?

[Milkshake]

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"?