There were three "women" in the 800m final that are hyperandrogenist
They finished 1-3.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by inhuman
They finished 1-3.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Your thinking on this seems somewhat muddled.
The fact they produce more testosterone than other women is a genetic advantage, no different to being a tall basketball player.
Making someone take testosterone reducing medication would be like making Usain Bolt carry additional weight like a horse in the Grand National.
The real issue is that in a competition system based around two genders, are they women? Given that there are a few people who are naturally intersex, is the definition of "woman" used by the IAAF satisfactory? Once you say that there is a continnum, with few in the middle, to be divided into two groups, is the boundary in the right place? If it is, good luck to her.
However, the IAAF got into a terrible mess with Pistorius and his blades. The IAAF has to accept that it has to be fair to all competitors and that may mean making decisions that may be unsympathetic to some.
Original post by inhuman
They finished 1-3.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Hmmmmm I think CAS may have ****ed up.
This is not a discussion about favorable genetics, yes say Usain Bolt or Michael Phelps have amazing genes for their sport. But they are men that compete against men.
These are not "women" that compete against women. If you allow them to compete against women, you might as well allow men to compete against women. Or, create a third category, but don't create gender-based competition and then break that by calling it just a biological advantage.
Semenya was tested. She has the genes of a woman.
What's your problem?
Original post by Supersaps
Semenya was tested. She has the genes of a woman.
What's your problem?
What's your problem?
Gender is not as binary as sporting competitions would have you believe.
My problem is that she has an advantage over others NOT based on genetics but based on the artificial definition of gender.
My problem is that someone with internal testes rather than a uterus and ovaries is allowed to compete against WOMEN.
And when she was taking treatment, it's not like she was terrible, she was still second in London.
My problem is not protecting this minority that very clearly does not fall into a binary gender classification as is used in sport, but protect the vast majority that do.
So you tell me, why do you not have a problem?
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by inhuman
Gender is not as binary as sporting competitions would have you believe.
My problem is that she has an advantage over others NOT based on genetics but based on the artificial definition of gender.
My problem is that someone with internal testes rather than a uterus and ovaries is allowed to compete against WOMEN.
And when she was taking treatment, it's not like she was terrible, she was still second in London.
My problem is not protecting this minority that very clearly does not fall into a binary gender classification as is used in sport, but protect the vast majority that do.
So you tell me, why do you not have a problem?
My problem is that she has an advantage over others NOT based on genetics but based on the artificial definition of gender.
My problem is that someone with internal testes rather than a uterus and ovaries is allowed to compete against WOMEN.
And when she was taking treatment, it's not like she was terrible, she was still second in London.
My problem is not protecting this minority that very clearly does not fall into a binary gender classification as is used in sport, but protect the vast majority that do.
So you tell me, why do you not have a problem?
But the Olympics is (for the most part) binary. It isn't "open" with then a second restricted set of events for women. Everyone is assigned by the rules to being a man or a woman. Semenya would not be allowed to cox the SA mens' eight even if she is the best cox in South Africa
Original post by nulli tertius
But the Olympics is (for the most part) binary. It isn't "open" with then a second restricted set of events for women. Everyone is assigned by the rules to being a man or a woman. Semenya would not be allowed to cox the SA mens' eight even if she is the best cox in South Africa
So what?
The point here is that the majority, the vast majority, have to be protected.
If you say "intersex with female gender identity = female", then you are a) slapping every woman in face and b) opening yourself up to countries targeting intersex children for sports and c) not following your own gender rules.
Original post by inhuman
x
She has an XX chromosome. She's a woman.
Gender politics has no place in the Olympics.
If I'm a bloke and I identify as a woman, should I be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a woman? Of course not.
SS
At some point correcting for genetic advantages makes the competition purposeless, as the results are primarily determined by genetic advantages also among those who are unambiguously of one gender. West Africans dominate sprinting, East Africans dominate long distance track. Those are very obvious ones but it is not like you or I could match any of the competitors in most events simply by training.
The Olympics are not a competition to find who is most dedicated and best at training. The Olympics are a competition to find the most genetically gifted athletes who have been paid by their country to work as athletes rather than do something else.
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
The Olympics are not a competition to find who is most dedicated and best at training. The Olympics are a competition to find the most genetically gifted athletes who have been paid by their country to work as athletes rather than do something else.
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by inhuman
So what?
The point here is that the majority, the vast majority, have to be protected.
If you say "intersex with female gender identity = female", then you are a) slapping every woman in face and b) opening yourself up to countries targeting intersex children for sports and c) not following your own gender rules.
The point here is that the majority, the vast majority, have to be protected.
If you say "intersex with female gender identity = female", then you are a) slapping every woman in face and b) opening yourself up to countries targeting intersex children for sports and c) not following your own gender rules.
I don't think there is any evidence for (c) although as I say they got in an awful mess over Pistorius for sympathetic/commercial reasons
The IAAF is entirely justified in saying "intersex regardless of gender identity = male" or "intersex with female gender identity = paralympics".
What they are not justified in saying is natural advantage should be artificially reduced because that is a slippery slope to arbitrary decisions because natural advantage is at the heart of the competition. Which natural advantages should be handicapped and by how much? The problem highlighted here is not unique. The people who have utterly dominated most sports are "freaks of nature" in one way or another.
Of course, countries will target intersex children (if they haven't been doing so for many years) because they target every other natural advantage.
Original post by Supersaps
She has an XX chromosome. She's a woman.
Gender politics has no place in the Olympics.
If I'm a bloke and I identify as a woman, should I be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a woman? Of course not.
SS
Gender politics has no place in the Olympics.
If I'm a bloke and I identify as a woman, should I be allowed to compete in the Olympics as a woman? Of course not.
SS
Ignorance.
It has every place in sports. Not to mention that the world is not as black and white as XX or XY.
Original post by Observatory
At some point correcting for genetic advantages makes the competition purposeless, as the results are primarily determined by genetic advantages also among those who are unambiguously of one gender. West Africans dominate sprinting, East Africans dominate long distance track. Those are very obvious ones but it is not like you or I could match any of the competitors in most events simply by training.
The Olympics are not a competition to find who is most dedicated and best at training. The Olympics are a competition to find the most genetically gifted athletes who have been paid by their country to work as athletes rather than do something else.
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
The Olympics are not a competition to find who is most dedicated and best at training. The Olympics are a competition to find the most genetically gifted athletes who have been paid by their country to work as athletes rather than do something else.
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
But that is the entire point. In order for women to get to compete, sport is divided into male and female.
And all of a sudden you are letting people compete that display clear male characteristics, and suddenly you call it just a genetic advantage like person X has or entire group Z has?
No. I would agree with you except the categories male/female were artificially created to allow women to compete. If you argue Semenya is allowed to start, then you are logically saying males should be allowed to start against women.
Original post by nulli tertius
I don't think there is any evidence for (c) although as I say they got in an awful mess over Pistorius for sympathetic/commercial reasons
The IAAF is entirely justified in saying "intersex regardless of gender identity = male" or "intersex with female gender identity = paralympics".
What they are not justified in saying is natural advantage should be artificially reduced because that is a slippery slope to arbitrary decisions because natural advantage is at the heart of the competition. Which natural advantages should be handicapped and by how much? The problem highlighted here is not unique. The people who have utterly dominated most sports are "freaks of nature" in one way or another.
Of course, countries will target intersex children (if they haven't been doing so for many years) because they target every other natural advantage.
The IAAF is entirely justified in saying "intersex regardless of gender identity = male" or "intersex with female gender identity = paralympics".
What they are not justified in saying is natural advantage should be artificially reduced because that is a slippery slope to arbitrary decisions because natural advantage is at the heart of the competition. Which natural advantages should be handicapped and by how much? The problem highlighted here is not unique. The people who have utterly dominated most sports are "freaks of nature" in one way or another.
Of course, countries will target intersex children (if they haven't been doing so for many years) because they target every other natural advantage.
No. They are not saying the natural advantage should be naturally reduced. They are saying "a woman is defined by this and that, if you want to compete as a woman you must fulfill these criteria".
As I said, either you block Semenya starting naturally, or you also allow men to compete with women.
Original post by Observatory
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
If there is any unprincipled exception it is the existence of a womens' category at all. Being a woman is a huge genetic disadvantage in almost every sport only in the way that not being a West African is a huge genetic disadvantage in being a sprinter, and we don't have a separate sprinting event for people who are not from West Africa.
No more unprincipled than flyweight boxing.
We divide sport competitions by age, weight, gender and nationality and by the rules/technique of the sport.
Essentially it doesn't matter that people of West African origin are good at sprinting because much (not all) of the world has a population of West African origin and because there are other sports in which for genetic or cultural reasons, other countries excel.
Not to mention, in her specific case I would go so far as to block her from female competition altogether - she has no ovaries and no uterus but testes.
If anything, her "genetic advantage" is actually a disadvantage as a male. She has a mutation that makes her unable to use testosterone to the full extent which means instead of developing as a male, she has developed female characteristics and was classes as female. This "genetic advantage" that she is is no such thing. It's the other way round.
If anything, her "genetic advantage" is actually a disadvantage as a male. She has a mutation that makes her unable to use testosterone to the full extent which means instead of developing as a male, she has developed female characteristics and was classes as female. This "genetic advantage" that she is is no such thing. It's the other way round.
Original post by inhuman
It has every place in sports. Not to mention that the world is not as black and white as XX or XY.
It has every place in sports. Not to mention that the world is not as black and white as XX or XY.
Mental. You actually want to ban someone because they have more testosterone than you think is acceptable?
The fact that she has more testostrone is irrelevant. Usain Bolt probably has more testostrone than most. Should he be banned?
I ask again the question: Should Dave, born a man, but identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in the Olympics?
There would be 0 female athletes winning Gold medals if you let men compete.
Sport is as black as XX or XY unless you want to make a complete mockery of it.
She is a woman. She has an XX chromosome. Her testosterone production is irrelevant.
No one would try and ban a man for producing too much testosterone. Why are you trying to ban a woman?
SS
Original post by Supersaps
Mental. You actually want to ban someone because they have more testosterone than you think is acceptable?
The fact that she has more testostrone is irrelevant. Usain Bolt probably has more testostrone than most. Should he be banned?
I ask again the question: Should Dave, born a man, but identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in the Olympics?
There would be 0 female athletes winning Gold medals if you let men compete.
Sport is as black as XX or XY unless you want to make a complete mockery of it.
She is a woman. She has an XX chromosome. Her testosterone production is irrelevant.
No one would try and ban a man for producing too much testosterone. Why are you trying to ban a woman?
SS
The fact that she has more testostrone is irrelevant. Usain Bolt probably has more testostrone than most. Should he be banned?
I ask again the question: Should Dave, born a man, but identifies as a woman be allowed to compete in the Olympics?
There would be 0 female athletes winning Gold medals if you let men compete.
Sport is as black as XX or XY unless you want to make a complete mockery of it.
She is a woman. She has an XX chromosome. Her testosterone production is irrelevant.
No one would try and ban a man for producing too much testosterone. Why are you trying to ban a woman?
SS
You do not get the point.
As soon as you create artificial categories like male/female, you must adhere to them.
How can you not get that?
Your entire line of argumentation is completely irrelevant.
And no, "she" is a he. He looks like a man, he has testes, he has no ovaries and no uterus. The only thing that makes him female is a vagina. He is even interested in women and not men. Or is that just pure coincidence?
For all I care create a third category for intersex people. Or make them part of the paralympics (because technically this is a genetic disability). But do not let intersex people compete with what sport has classified as "women".
Just googled this to show you your ignorance:
"Semenya's case is not without precedent. At the 1996 Olympics Games in Atlanta, eight female athletes were determined to have XY chromosomes and were not allowed to compete, The Los Angeles Times reports, adding that further studies showed that they were physiologically female even though their genes said they were male, and they were reinstated. TheTimes article includes several examples of how genetics and gender don't always match."
There you have it. You, the absolute expert on this topic decree "XX = women, XY = men" and yet here there are XY that get to compete with the women.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by inhuman
No. They are not saying the natural advantage should be naturally reduced. They are saying "a woman is defined by this and that, if you want to compete as a woman you must fulfill these criteria".
Except with the medication idea, that is exactly what they are not doing. No woman would be allowed artificially to raise her testosterone level to the level at which Semenya is allowed to operate under the medication programme. She would be thrown out on her ear for doping.
They have decided she is a woman and are then handicapping her because her results are too good
Original post by nulli tertius
Except with the medication idea, that is exactly what they are not doing. No woman would be allowed artificially to raise her testosterone level to the level at which Semenya is allowed to operate under the medication programme. She would be thrown out on her ear for doping.
They have decided she is a woman and are then handicapping her because her results are too good
They have decided she is a woman and are then handicapping her because her results are too good
Semantics.
Who says male is XY and female XX, end of story? Who defines what a woman is?
In the end they get to choose. And this testosterone ceiling is just them choosing.
It would be better if you called the men's category "open" and the women's category "restricted" and define very clearly what these restrictions are.
Because who are you trying to protect by having a women's category to begin with? Women. Women who have a natural disadvantage against men simply for being women. If you let certain individuals now compete against women, then your entire point of protecting women is gone. And in the end you want to protect the 99% of women who are 100% women. Not the 1% who are not 100% women.
Original post by inhuman
As soon as you create artificial categories like male/female, you must adhere to them.
As soon as you create artificial categories like male/female, you must adhere to them.
You seem to have an implicit definition of a female in your head, which is a different definition than Supersaps is using.
As far as Supersaps is concerned anyone with XX chromasomes is female. He hasn't offered a view regarding people with odd chromosome combinations but it seems that is irrelevant in Semenya's case.
What you haven't done is offered your definition of a female.
Original post by nulli tertius
No more unprincipled than flyweight boxing.
We divide sport competitions by age, weight, gender and nationality and by the rules/technique of the sport.
Essentially it doesn't matter that people of West African origin are good at sprinting because much (not all) of the world has a population of West African origin and because there are other sports in which for genetic or cultural reasons, other countries excel.
We divide sport competitions by age, weight, gender and nationality and by the rules/technique of the sport.
Essentially it doesn't matter that people of West African origin are good at sprinting because much (not all) of the world has a population of West African origin and because there are other sports in which for genetic or cultural reasons, other countries excel.
No more perhaps but I suggest that all of these categories are in some sense unprincipled.
I think most people have a (fuzzy) mental image of a level playing field for everyone within broad categories, competition between which would not be fair, i.e. they believe the substructure of these competitions is deeply principled.
In fact the playing field is uneven on the level of individual genomes. You could justify making every set of rules an open competition or you could justify every individual (except perhaps identical twins) having a separate competition in which they could win a gold. The substructure we actually choose is largely arbitrary.
Having women-only boxing is no more or less fair than whites-only sprinting. Now how about that for an A level English essay title?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- OU plagiarism policy and application
- Edexcel A Level English Literature Paper 2: Prose 9ET0 02 - 15 Jun 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Grade 9 in english literature??
- Can someone please mark my AIC essay (my teacher is such an unreliable marker)
- Ucas points help
- Pls help me mark my answer
- GCSE English Literature Macbeth Ambition essay
- AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 8702/1P - 25 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- macbet practice answer
- GCSE English Literature Study Group 2023-2024
- My GCSE story
- AQA GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (8702/1) - 13th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- my eng literature notes (grade 7/8) (gsce 2022)
- Can someone please mark this out of 30(all my teachers refused)
- OCR A Level English Literature Comparative and contextual study H472/02 - 15 Jun 2022
- A-level English Literature Study Group 2023-2024
- Do I not know about my vagina? Please help me!!
- gcse 2024
- Can someone mark my essay, please I beg
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 1 minute ago
Haven't heard back from LSELast reply 2 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Medical doctor degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Economics and Economic History 2024 ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 5 minutes ago
can you get accepted into a uni after being rejectedLast reply 7 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 9 minutes ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 9 minutes ago
Failed 3rd year, had a gap year, repeat or stop?Posted 11 minutes ago
Information Communication Technician or IT Solutions ApprenticeshipLast reply 14 minutes ago
UAL Bsc Fashion Management and fashion marketingPosted 14 minutes ago
Transffering University from Foundation Year in Scotland to EnglandLast reply 16 minutes ago
Student Finance for non-UK/EEA spouse of UK NationalLast reply 16 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 17 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024
