Caster Semenya could be forced to undertake hormone therapy for future Olympics

[413x]

That is why I just find it odd that people are going crazy about this. I understand the problem with a man pretending to be a women but these twin sexed people have a genetic advantage the same as my Michael Phelps post but because it is to do with sex everyone goes crazy when the sport has been a genetic superiority fest since the 80's.

Yeah I see both sides to be honest.

I expect athletic type sports in particular are going to be plagued by controversy for years to come.

What is sport anymore? It's so advanced and so much money in it is it even "sport" anymore?
I go back to F1.. F1 certainly isn't a sport by my definition. Because you can't win without tonnes of cash.

 

[413x]

The genetic advantage is along sex lines though. There are categories for that.
There aren't categories for foot size or wing span.

But there are for weight.

Should there be for hormone levels? Genetics etc? Obviously not to the nth degree. But you have to wonder if gender/sex is becoming not enough to differentiate with the technology we have now.

 

[antijoke]

The technology we have? What does this mean?

 

[Fubsy]

But there are for weight.

Should there be for hormone levels? Genetics etc? Obviously not to the nth degree. But you have to wonder if gender/sex is becoming not enough to differentiate with the technology we have now.

If you like to see biological males punching biological females then that's great for you. It's not my cup of tea tbh.

I do however enjoy watching the freaks of nature like Phelps, Ronaldo, Bolt, Williams (both), Woods (when he was younger) etc. as they are not there based on a defect, or lack of development, but because of the extreme development of their strengths as natural athletes. Male DSD athletes competing in female categories is a result of their underdevelopment in their born biological sex, competing with females may be inclusionary, but is a mockery of the sex categories - imagine a world where Serena and Venus Williams don't dominate tennis because there is a DSD player on the circuit at that time for example that happens to be at or just above their levels (remember, there was a 200+ ranked male that beat them both, back to back in the 90s).

These males do not compete in a vacuum, there are costs to the biological females they compete against. If they compete with other males, the only cost is to themselves.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Neither are males with DSD conditions considered female in their natural born state.

Depending on exact condition and any confirmed benefit it brings - Case in point, XY Chromo is considered definitely male, despite it being possible for some of them to give birth.
This is why it's such a point of contention, without solid scientific proof behind it, and why it should not be down to public media trial.

The same could be said about non-DSD males, they shouldn't be allowed to compete as women though.

Only because to do so requires that same form of artificial alteration, ie filling out a form and getting a passport that reflects this.

That's on the athletes who know they are biological males and decide to come and compete in the Olympics as women anyway, they're free to stay at home out of the spotlight or take their rightful place competing in local running club or boxing club events with other mediocre male amateurs at their level.

Most have had no idea until some scientist comes along halfway through their career and flips their world around, which is especially harsh when the same experts are reversing official decisions.
Meanwhile others, like Dutee Chand, are seemingly fine to compete as women despite known male issues like testicular cancer.

Either way, it should not be something aired in public.

Of if they feel particularly strongly for DSD inclusion in Olympic sport then perhaps lobby for inclusion in the Paralympics.

DSD is a state of being, not a disability.

 

[dowie]

Depending on exact condition and any confirmed benefit it brings - Case in point, XY Chromo is considered definitely male, despite it being possible for some of them to give birth.
This is why it's such a point of contention, without solid scientific proof behind it, and why it should not be down to public media trial.

Irrelevant, "she" is clearly masculine. While there are some rare XY conditions that have errors on the Y chromosome and result in a female that's obviously not the case here and there isn't any athletic advantage.

If that was the issue they'd have an obvious case at CAS or could have resolved privately when initially banned pre-Oylmpics.

Only because to do so requires that same form of artificial alteration, ie filling out a form and getting a passport that reflects this.

How do you know that didn't happen in this case - passport issued in 2019. Why should a form make any difference here?

Most have had no idea until some scientist comes along halfway through their career and flips their world around, which is especially harsh when the same experts are reversing official decisions.

Clearly not true.

DSD is a state of being, not a disability.

Pure semantics/politics. You could say the same about any number of disabilities or medical conditions people are born with.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Irrelevant, "she" is clearly masculine.

An argument that's about as relevant as the assertion that someone has 'girl parts' so is clearly feminine.
Ability to give birth has been cited in this thread as the very definition of feminine, so if a "man" can give birth then it's not as clear as you assert.
And as per Chand's ruling, it doesn't matter how masculine you "clearly" think someone is, so long as they don't appear to derive any advantage from it.

It doesn't even matter to which specific "she" you refer (and I'm deliberately not paying attention) as the proof of advantage is the only factor people care about.

While there are some rare XY conditions that have errors on the Y chromosome and result in a female that's obviously not the case here and there isn't any athletic advantage.

Athletic advantage is still not satisfactorily resolved either way, though, and the more people dig into it the more uncertainty is raised.

How do you know that didn't happen in this case - passport issued in 2019. Why should a form make any difference here?

It doesn't make any difference. That was the point being made.
The difference is that non-DSD males have not lived their lives and built a career on the professional opinions of doctors and governing body officials that they are female.

Clearly not true.

Plenty of recent (as in post-Semenya) cases involving athletes previously unaware of any DSD, despite having been previously tested.
So until a consensus is reached and substantiated classifications set, the private determinations of any athletes' state should not be plastered all over the tabloids... and even then, privacy laws should still be protecting those individuals' privacy.

Pure semantics/politics. You could say the same about any number of disabilities or medical conditions people are born with.

And they do say this, which is why some people are turned down as being 'not disabled enough'. DSD would be classified as 'not even slightly disabled' and in fact arguably the opposite.
So the Paralympics is out... Next?

 

[dowie]

An argument that's about as relevant as the assertion that someone has 'girl parts' so is clearly feminine.
Ability to give birth has been cited in this thread as the very definition of feminine, so if a "man" can give birth then it's not as clear as you assert.

You don't seem to understand, you're trying to muddy the waters by talking about an XY intersex condition that comes with female body parts and where the people don't have any benefits from testosterone. These people don't have male advantages and don't look masculine.

It's a total red herring, you're perhaps fallen for some of the deliberate misinformation online - well ackchually in some rare case XY people can give birth... has nothing to do with this case!

Athletic advantage is still not satisfactorily resolved either way, though, and the more people dig into it the more uncertainty is raised.

Males have a clear athletic advantage in athletics.

And they do say this, which is why some people are turned down as being 'not disabled enough'. DSD would be classified as 'not even slightly disabled'

They're turned down because they don't fit the criteria for a category. You have different criteria for different categories... like how blind someone is etc.. But how blind someone is has nothing to do with DSD.

If you have a DSD category for DSD conditions then those DSD conditions would qualify for it.... by definition.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You don't seem to understand, you're trying to muddy the waters by talking about an XY intersex condition that comes with female body parts and where the people don't have any benefits from testosterone. These people don't have male advantages and don't look masculine.

Not at all, you're applying gender traits and appearance to various measures of biological sex, in a set of conditions where either sex can look "clearly" either way regardless of actual condition. The waters are already muddy from the lack of information on whether any provable advantage presents in any case, so your desire to try and simplify things by excluding variables and instead rely on subjective criteria is only making it worse.

It's a total red herring, you're perhaps fallen for some of the deliberate misinformation online - well ackchually in some rare case XY people can give birth... has nothing to do with this case!

It has happened. About 20 recorded times, I believe, with likely more in undiscovered cases - It's not exactly misinformation if something can and has actually happened, and arguably not that rare given the comparatively low numbers of DSD people.

Conversely, the idea of testosterone being the defining measure of athletic advantage already fell apart when people start studying it more and finding there were several other factors involved, to the point where in many cases testosterone made absolutely no difference.

Males have a clear athletic advantage in athletics.

Which 'clearly' ranges in percentage right the way down to absolute zero, depending on discipline and other factors. Clearly you have clearly taken some clearly questionable assumptions and clearly cleared your mind of all clear posibilities that your information is clearly incomplete or limited in scope.

They're turned down because they don't fit the criteria for a category. You have different criteria for different categories... like how blind someone is etc.. But how blind someone is has nothing to do with DSD.

Jah, because DSD is not a disability. Kinda exactly what I said.

If you have a DSD category for DSD conditions then those DSD conditions would qualify for it.... by definition.

And if I had such a category, you'd be the first to bleat about how some of those thusly categorised would not be considered DSD enough.

 

[Diddums]

Ah sweet, a dowiehole. I was starting to think we had too much fun in here, gotta rein it in a bit

 

[dlockers]

Ah sweet, a dowiehole. I was starting to think we had too much fun in here, gotta rein it in a bit

As long as he doesn't dead name an ice cream maker he will be fine. That is the line that gets you thread banned.

 

[Diddums]

That is the line that gets you thread banned.

Being a **** in a thread is what will get you thread banned.


Whining like a little bitch about it is what will get you suspended.


I speak from a LOT of experience

 

[dowie]

Not at all, you're applying gender traits and appearance to various measures of biological sex

Again you have missed the point/don't understand. You're just doing some handwaving where you're conflating this situation with conditions that don't apply, the point about this boxer being clearly masculine was made because you're attempting to conflate things with a different XY condition that doesn't result in that.

Conversely, the idea of testosterone being the defining measure of athletic advantage already fell apart when people start studying it more

There is a clear advantage for males in various sports which is why we have separate events, this is easily observed by looking at the results for almost every Olympic event.

Jah, because DSD is not a disability.

Pure semantics, it can easily be considered one and an event set up for DSD athletes.

 

[Grim5]

lol imagine trying to claim testosterone has no impact on athletic performance

I guess males just beat the snot out of women in any event because they like to eat red meat, take their vitamins and say their prayers brother!

 

[ttaskmaster]

You're just doing some handwaving where you're conflating this situation with conditions that don't apply

Which are exactly the challenges laid out against various other cases, namely assuming the conditions and factors in one case applied to them all, hence the point.

the point about this boxer being clearly masculine was made because you're attempting to conflate things with a different XY condition that doesn't result in that.

I like how you're now calling them "masculine", a set of traits and behaviours that can easily be exhibited by either sex, rather than saying "male". It shows you're learning, even if unwillingly and unwittingly.
Also shows I don't need to conflate anything, as you're clearly just as confused as the average person.

There is a clear advantage for males in various sports which is why we have separate events, this is easily observed by looking at the results for almost every Olympic event.

Yup.
But what scientists are debating is how much of that is down to natural testosterone itself and it's levels, and whether it has any effect at all or whether it's down to other factors.
Some findings have even suggested that cirulating testosterone drives a more potent response in females, and so a DSD athlete with naturally higher testosterone may derive advantage from the more female factors of their condition. This is why East Germany started its infamous doping program, in the hope that exogenous testosterone would do the same.

Pure semantics, it can easily be considered one and an event set up for DSD athletes.

Then explain what 'disability' DSD athletes suffer from.....
How is their performance in any way hampered by their condition?

 

[dowie]

I like how you're now calling them "masculine", a set of traits and behaviours that can easily be exhibited by either sex, rather than saying "male". It shows you're learning, even if unwillingly and unwittingly.
Also shows I don't need to conflate anything, as you're clearly just as confused as the average person.

You're again missing the point - those things aren't mutually exclusive - you can be male and masculine.

The point re: masculine was made in reference to you trying to do a bit of handwaving re: other XY conditions and that point was to highlight that those clearly weren't applicable here, that still seems to have gone over your head as you keep on replying to it without showing any understanding of that and just responding as if something else has been said.

Then explain what 'disability' DSD athletes suffer from.....
How is their performance in any way hampered by their condition?

DSD

If someone's arm doesn't develop you'd call that disabled right? But if someone's ball sack doesn't fully develop and their penis doesn't grow that's not a disability even though it limits them from performing the obvious?

Just because DSD have been kept very private historically or is viewed a certain way doesn't negate that it could just as easily be seen as a disability.

More to the point though the Paralympics is the place for categories to be segregated based on disabilities or medical conditions and it would be an obvious solution to this issue.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Also they can partake in combat so long as the weapons are part of their body. I think I'd watch that.

That's a lot to stomach

 

[Fubsy]

Also they can partake in combat so long as the weapons are part of their body. I think I'd watch that.

Like this?

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

Where do you draw the line though? Phelps for example was a perfect genetic hybrid of a man for swimming. He is only 3cm taller than me but his wing span is magnitudes bigger than mine and his shoe size is 4 sizes bigger than me!

I could train better than him but I am never going to beat him due to genetics.

30-40 years ago a genuine champion could win due to having the right work ethic and determination but those days are long gone now with Sports Science how it is now.

The whole sport needs a big shakeup really or nations have to get realistic with their expectations and only train youth for a sport they will actually be good at.

Whether they are genetically male or female.

And no 30-40 years ago you couldn't win through having the right work ethic and determination. You always needed phenomenal genetics for that particular discipline. Maybe 120 years ago when only the rich competed

 

[ANDREW GREEN]

That is why I just find it odd that people are going crazy about this. I understand the problem with a man pretending to be a women but these twin sexed people have a genetic advantage the same as my Michael Phelps post but because it is to do with sex everyone goes crazy when the sport has been a genetic superiority fest since the 80's.

No they don't have a genetic advantage other than the fact they are men. Men have genetic advantages over women. We have men's and women's to allow women to compete with women. Men shouldn't be competing with women. Why is that hard to understand?