There were three "women" in the 800m final that are hyperandrogenist

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.

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?

Look guys, I completely agree with you lot.

But that is not issue, that is an entire different issue.

The issue right now is that we have only 2 broad categories - male and female. And we have those because if we didn't, females couldn't compete.

And all I am saying is that it is a farce to create these two categories and then let people that have significant characteristics of one of them, compete in the other where they have an advantage.

I do not have to offer a definition of female. I am saying the IAAF is very free to choose their own definition, and so they have with this testosterone ceiling.

They are free to choose a definition as they have done with the under 57 kg class in boxing. But if you take medication to lose weight to meet the limit the boxing authorities will sling you out for doping.

If this was a true definition of the competition, she would be doping, in using artificial means to bring herself within the threshold.

The IAAF are not applying this as a definition for the event. They are handicapping her.

If you exclude androgynous people, the competition will still select the most mannish women permitted by the rules, because male characteristics are advantageous in almost all these competitions.

As a spectator, I would rather watch scantily clad feminine women than scantily clad masculine women, but in terms of the fairness of the competition it's arbitrary which side of the male/female line you choose to put these people on.

On your final point, Semanya and all other athletes are in some sense "untalented" if by "untalented" you mean they only win because of their characteristics, that despite the fact that many of them are hard working. If she is put on the other side of the male/female line she will not be competitive despite her hard work (just like you and me and 99% of potentially interested parties). The Olympics are to a large extent a genetic competition.

You can take weight loss pills and not be considered doping...

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.

Ignorance.

It has every place in sports. Not to mention that the world is not as black and white as XX or XY.

Yes, BUT SO ****ING WHAT?

That is not the point. How many more times...

If you create a category called "female", you have to ensure that only females get to participate. And since Caster displays significant male characteristics, it is a farce to let her compete in a category that you created in order so that members of the category would not have to compete against people that have these characteristics.

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.

All the female competitors display significant male characteristics. I don't have a six pack like this - http://www.cev.lu/NewsImages/12877/Original/main.jpg - and she plays beach volleyball, not exactly the most competitive sport.

True. But then I often wonder why they have separate gender competitions, surely being "male" could just be considered another genetic advantage.

Yes of course it is.

We do divide sport up to approximate to like competing with like and inhuman is right when he says that hyperandrogenist athletes may prejudice in the case of female classes.

However so long as sport is binary n arbitrary line must be drawn somewhere.

The problem with inhuman's approach is that it is entirely impressionistic. The problem with the IAAF's preferred medication approach is that is handicapping.

A contest between a castrato and a woman who has had a hysterectomy is still a contest between a man and a woman not a woman and a man.

You can't be overweight in boxing if you agree to wear a weight belt on your ankle.

I should perhaps mention here one odd and surprising piece of discrimination Until 1998 three day event used to effectively discriminate against female riders. Until 1996 there was a minimum weight of rider and saddle of 75Kg (11 stone 11lbs). Whilst male riders were free to use to use their natural advantage in strength and endurance, women riders were not free to use their natural advantage in weight. In 1984 GB gained silver in the team event to the USA's gold, but the USA had two male riders to our one.

There is nothing wrong per se with handicapping.

In winter sports you regularly get cases where athletes are suspended if their red blood count is over 50. This happens naturally when training at altitude, but they set that as the limit.

But I agree with you, Semanya should not be allowed to compete at all. But that would cause too much of an outcry so this is the best alternative for the moment. Going forward one needs to come up with a better one, however.