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

[dowie]

Just to be clear - Nope.

Just to be clear - are you stating that you don't believe males (in general) have an advantage over females in the majority of athletics events?

Why do you think we separate male and female competitors?

So do you think trans women should be able to compete with women uninhibited since you don't believe there is any advantage?

How do you account for the performance gap in so many events - women are just not trying as hard as men but could totally achieve the same results, same records if they just put in the effort?

 

[dlockers]

God, taskmaster is like a paralympic dowie hole

 

[tom_e]

God, taskmaster is like a paralympic dowie hole

When these two get going it must make up a large part of the total forum bandwidth

 

[Thekwango]

When these two get going it must make up a large part of the total forum bandwidth

Much like the olympics and the debate at hand, I think we need a special forum section just for these pair.

 

[sidimmu]

A meaningless list of numbers that do not actually answer any of the questions. It just shows men win. It doesn't detail why, or shed any light on whether DSDs afford any advantage.

What is the actual advantage, what causes it, where is the science that proves it, where is the proof of it in individuals... and specifically where is all this in the DSD cases?
How are you not able to provide these answers?

Get presented with some truth, give some snidey remarks and then continue to do what I said you would. Love it.

A man does not enter the female category simple as. The advantage is being an athletic male, how blind are you? An athletic male in a chose field will always absolutely dominate the opposing female when we are talking about olympic level.
The female category is for definitive females.

DSD and any other of these conditions, if they put you outside of the operating limits of a female across Testosterone or Estrogen, you should not be competing within that Gender.
IOC is at blame and should have a clear definition of female limits by now, the whole charade is embarrassing. Release information showing clear proof of female within operating limits, or exclude them.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So do you think trans women should be able to compete with women uninhibited since you don't believe there is any advantage?

Do I?
What do you think I think?
Let's go with what you think I think, rather than what I've clearly said already... you seem to prefer that narrative.

Even with a pretty definitive one-word answer, you somehow manage to interpret that as the complete opposite of what I said and are now going off on one....

Get presented with some truth, give some snidey remarks and then continue to do what I said you would. Love it.

14.6
120
3.14
86225

Does that make it clearer for you?

A man does not enter the female category simple as. The advantage is being an athletic male, how blind are you? An athletic male in a chose field will always absolutely dominate the opposing female when we are talking about olympic level.

So the DSDs who are not so dominant, and may or may not be defined as female by science - Where do you place them?

The female category is for definitive females.

Define female, then....
Has female internal organs? Can give birth?
Science can't yet decide it, so what makes you think you can?

DSD and any other of these conditions, if they put you outside of the operating limits of a female across Testosterone or Estrogen, you should not be competing within that Gender.

You assume testosterone is the defining factor, where science is no longer even remotely certain.
You forget that some high-testosterone XY (assumed-male) athletes are allowed to compete as female, where others with lower testosterone and other chromosomes are not, even in the same events.

IOC is at blame and should have a clear definition of female limits by now, the whole charade is embarrassing. Release information showing clear proof of female within operating limits, or exclude them.

The deeper they look into it, the less definite it's becoming.
Releasing information would likely be legal suicide now, without the individuals' express consents. Similarly exclusion could only be done confidentially. The latter would the the fairest option, despite the likely damage caused by speculation, and the one for which I have been advocating in the first place - Nice to see you agree with some sense, though.

God, taskmaster is like a paralympic dowie hole

Paralympics are entirely his idea, not mine. I was merely asked for my opinion...

Much like the olympics and the debate at hand, I think we need a special forum section just for these pair.

His freakish biology is an unfair advantage. He should have to take medication to reduce his typing ability.

 

[sidimmu]

14.6
120
3.14
86225

Does that make it clearer for you?

With zero context, nope. So you are just trolling now?

Where do you place them?

If they are not female, they compete in male, or they dont compete at all.
If you want to cater to all, have a 3rd option for non gender defined people, simples.

Define female, then....
Has female internal organs? Can give birth?
Science can't yet decide it, so what makes you think you can?

The deeper they look into it, the less definite it's becoming.

I never said I can, plenty of athletic commissions across the world already have decided and given clarity on what's acceptable and what's not. Its just you don't agree with it.

You assume testosterone is the defining factor, where science is no longer even remotely certain.
You forget that some high-testosterone XY (assumed-male) athletes are allowed to compete as female, where others with lower testosterone and other chromosomes are not, even in the same events.

If its controlled in the mens, it should be controlled in the womens.
Dont meet criteria, dont compete.

Releasing information would likely be legal suicide now, without the individuals' express consents. Similarly exclusion could only be done confidentially. The latter would the the fairest option, despite the likely damage caused by speculation, and the one for which I have been advocating in the first place - Nice to see you agree with some sense, though.

Legal suicide if they have let someone compete when they should not of.
Otherwise its no problem, apart from said persons privacy.
But I could not care, it should be clarified and then clarified by the rules of competition and tests individuals undertake, current methods are outdated/open to abuse.

 

[aardvark]

Define female, then....
Has female internal organs? Can give birth?
Science can't yet decide it, so what makes you think you can?

you keep saying that but it is not a scientifically correct view - science can and does have a method.

The problem is when people are using their ideology to decide the science is wrong because it doesnt match a current dogmatic trend.

I'm a sientist and i find the aversion to facts that dont match peoples opinions, and the attempt to mold science into something its not to be distastful.

 

[dowie]

Even with a pretty definitive one-word answer, you somehow manage to interpret that as the complete opposite of what I said and are now going off on one....

So you're saying you do think males have an advantage over females?

If that's your positon then what is your issue here re: objecting to the idea that a male person shouldn't be competing vs females in boxing?

Again, if you think there is some disadvantage vs other regular males then the Paralympics could cater for DSD events, if you don't think that then what's the issue?

 

[ttaskmaster]

With zero context, nope. So you are just trolling now?

I did exactly what you did to make the point - Meaningless numbers posted without context or explanation do not answer the questions... even rhetorical ones.

If they are not female, they compete in male, or they dont compete at all.
If you want to cater to all, have a 3rd option for non gender defined people, simples.

Or just do the science, figure out the definitive answer and draw the line at that point. That would be the sensible approach.

I never said I can, plenty of athletic commissions across the world already have decided and given clarity on what's acceptable and what's not. Its just you don't agree with it.

It's not me disagreeing with it. It's those doing the studies.
You forget that the athletic commissions keep chopping and changing their minds about what is acceptable, depending on what science says or what the study they paid for says, all of which is not fair on the athletes who keep getting unbanned and rebanned from their career while their personal lives are publicly wrecked.

If its controlled in the mens, it should be controlled in the womens.
Dont meet criteria, dont compete.

It's not controlled in the mens', though. Only in the womens'...

Legal suicide if they have let someone compete when they should not of.

Only if the science at the time says so. Either way, they need the backing of science to support their decisions (hence the IOC having to pay for a study, to appease the CAS), otherwise they'll find themselves in court.

Otherwise its no problem, apart from said persons privacy.

That is the problem, though - This is all based on the concept that someone might be considered a cheat due to their biological condition, whether diagnosed or not.
Any such individual should be considered innocent until proven guilty, yet many have been trashed by mere opinion and misinformation, as well as severe breaches of confidentiality.
This whole mess should have been dealt with behind closed doors until properly resolved.

But I could not care, it should be clarified and then clarified by the rules of competition and tests individuals undertake, current methods are outdated/open to abuse.

Science is still working on the clarification aspect.
Everything else has been down to the media and the governing bodies' abysmal and disgusting handling of the cases.

you keep saying that but it is not a scientifically correct view - science can and does have a method.

It has a method which covers some of the situations in a general sense, but does not yet fully address the specifics. There is not yet a consensus supported by concurrent studies, nor enough studies to provide enough data for a consensus. Until they have that, we're left with subjective guesses of officials based on misunderstanding of incomplete data, and the even more subjective speculation of a public who just pick the data they like the sound of.

The problem is when people are using their ideology to decide the science is wrong because it doesnt match a current dogmatic trend.

I agree, and that's what I find several posters in this thread are doing.
Science says the dogma trending is wrong, which they then conflate with their moral ideology.

Science and morality are two elements of the same issue, but must be kept separate.

I'm a sientist and i find the aversion to facts that dont match peoples opinions, and the attempt to mold science into something its not to be distastful.

Again I agree. It gets worse when the lack of facts leave unanswered questions, that they try to resolve with their outated dogma instead of waiting for a proper answer.

So you're saying you do think males have an advantage over females?

Are you seriously still having to ask this one?
Just to be clear - What have you not clearly understood, despite it being clearly clarified for clarity?

If that's your positon then what is your issue here re: objecting to the idea that a male person shouldn't be competing vs females in boxing?

Same as always - Until we get official, scientific proof that an individual has an advantage*, a judgement cannot be made.
If there is a serious question over an athlete's suitability for their classification, they should simply be pulled from competition and protected by confidentiality so they can be accurately assessed.

*That advantage must be proven:
- At male levels - Faily obvious one.
- Unfair -
- As a result of their biological condition.
- Regardless of their biological sex classification.

Again, if you think there is some disadvantage vs other regular males then the Paralympics could cater for DSD events, if you don't think that then what's the issue?

So in addition to accusing me of going off on your tangent, you're now deciding to support (most of) my arguments against the Paralympics...??!!

Is this what a Dowie Hole actually feels like?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Olympic_records_in_athletics

Pretty definitive list of males outperforming females in every athletic Olympic sport.
Just looking at those records, there's a good 10-15% between every record held by a Male and Female.
Hence male advantage.

I seem to remember seeing a video that compared an athletes performance before and after steroids and I think it showed around a 10% bump in performance in weight lifting.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

That part was 'clearly' rhetorical, but never mind....

How many of these records are due to the athlete having a confirmed DSD, which is confirmed to have afforded them an advantage not commensurate with the sex as which they competed, and in that particular event, though?
If you can so easily cite the differences between male and female based on a set of records, you must surely know why the differences occur and thus easily determine whether DSD is an advantage using the same reasoning?

A meaningless list of numbers that do not actually answer any of the questions. It just shows men win. It doesn't detail why, or shed any light on whether DSDs afford any advantage.

What is the actual advantage, what causes it, where is the science that proves it, where is the proof of it in individuals... and specifically where is all this in the DSD cases?
How are you not able to provide these answers?

The affects of test is reasonably well known and understood, hence it is banned as a performance enhancing drug by the Olympic committee.

testosterone is produced in the testicles so the presence of testicles does give an advantage. Hence the difference in records between men and women.

We essentially separate women into their own class due to the lack of testicles. (I am simplifying it a bit).

A person with internal testes even if, they malfunctioning somewhat, is still a steroid factory bolted onto their body and for that reason should not be competing with women.

 

[dlockers]

Same as always - Until we get official, scientific proof that an individual has an advantage*, a judgement cannot be made.

I don't think you understand the word judgement, lol.

 

[sidimmu]

I did exactly what you did to make the point - Meaningless numbers posted without context or explanation do not answer the questions... even rhetorical ones.

Except thats not true now is it.
The link identified the significant difference in male to female performance at the highest level, through world records.

Or just do the science, figure out the definitive answer and draw the line at that point. That would be the sensible approach.

Already been drawn, you dont agree with it.

You forget that the athletic commissions keep chopping and changing their minds about what is acceptable, depending on what science says or what the study they paid for says, all of which is not fair on the athletes who keep getting unbanned and rebanned from their career while their personal lives are publicly wrecked.

Nope.
This got covered years ago in america with Fallon Fox, cleared up and american athletic commissions have not really had a problem since, in the context of combat sports.
People get banned, unbanned and rebanned all time time, mainly because they are cheaters.
Again look who you are defending here, glorified cheaters.

It's not controlled in the mens', though. Only in the womens'...

Outright lie yet again, please look at what you just wrote.
Male testosterone is controlled and their are limits to the amount of testosterone your body is producing before you are not allowed to compete. See Alistair Overeems famous drug test fail.

Science is still working on the clarification aspect.
Everything else has been down to the media and the governing bodies' abysmal and disgusting handling of the cases

Incorrect yet again. See points above about athletic commissions.
Disgusting to you in a different sense to the rest of the posters here.

 

[dowie]

Same as always - Until we get official, scientific proof that an individual has an advantage*, a judgement cannot be made.
If there is a serious question over an athlete's suitability for their classification, they should simply be pulled from competition and protected by confidentiality so they can be accurately assessed.

The boxer in this case has been assessed though, by two different labs - the thing you're demanding has been done. It's on the IOC to reintroduce sex testing.

*That advantage must be proven:
- At male levels - Faily obvious one.
- Unfair -
- As a result of their biological condition.
- Regardless of their biological sex classification.

But you just said you accept the males have an advantage over females?

What's the reason you think 5-ARD athletes don't have a similar advantage to other males - why would their penis not developing properly prevent them from say running well or boxing?

So in addition to accusing me of going off on your tangent, you're now deciding to support (most of) my arguments against the Paralympics...??!!

No, I'm pointing out that if you think there is a difference in ability between regular males and intersex males with male advantages - say PAS not giving a full advantage - then we have events for people with different abilities as a result of their medical conditions - the Paralympics.

You seem to want to go off on some tangential semantic argument re: whether to give the label "disability" to DSD conditions but you've got an inherently flawed position then.

If you don't think there is a difference in ability then they should compete as males, right?

If you do then... as mentioned already above, Paralympic events.

 

[dowie]

A person with internal testes even if, they malfunctioning somewhat, is still a steroid factory bolted onto their body and for that reason should not be competing with women.

Exactly - there are some intersex conditions where there is no impact from it, those people are usually mentioned to muddy the waters/obfuscate the issue, they're typically not very athletic and rare to see at the Olympics but could compete as females as they have no male advantages.

There are other male intersex athletes who might well have been raised as if they were female out of convenience//practicality, might still socialise as if they're females etc.. but clearly have a male advantage.

The obvious solutions here are either:

1) Run as men.

2) Have a separate event in the Paralympics.

The second is suggested because for some of these conditions, the male advantage conferred by 5-ARD or PAIS can be variable. They might not see themselves as "disabled" socially but they're males with a medical condition that caused them to not fully develop their (external) male private parts but that still confers male advantages, those male advantages are partial ergo they can be argued to be "differently abled" vs normal males who don't have those conditions.

That sort of thing, differentiable as a result of a condition, is the very reason we have the Paralympics, whether they want to be labeled as "disabled" socially or not (just as they might not want to be labeled as male socially - the fact is they are males and they are differently abled).

 

[ttaskmaster]

The affects of test is reasonably well known and understood, hence it is banned as a performance enhancing drug by the Olympic committee.

As an exogenous supplement, yes, but the question remains as to whether endogenous testosterone provides the same advantage, and under what circumstances. This latter aspect is considerably variable between individuals, hence it's not yet definitive.

A person with internal testes even if, they malfunctioning somewhat, is still a steroid factory bolted onto their body and for that reason should not be competing with women.

Only if their body properly uses it, which is not the case in certain DSD types, hence them already being cleared to compete as women.

Except thats not true now is it.
The link identified the significant difference in male to female performance at the highest level, through world records.

The link shows a bunch of numbers. It contains nothing that actually explains the reasons behind it. You're inferring everything else.

Already been drawn, you dont agree with it.

Plenty of scientists are disputing it, citing various evidence for their reasoning. I find their reasoning makes sense.
The line also keeps getting redrawn, swinging between scientific evidence and the mere opinion of some random administrators.

Nope.
This got covered years ago in america with Fallon Fox, cleared up and american athletic commissions have not really had a problem since, in the context of combat sports.

Fallon Fox was born and developed as pure male, with all the associated advantages. That is not a DSD case.

Again look who you are defending here, glorified cheaters.

Competing unenhanced is cheating, now?
When the official governing body examines you and says you're female, that's cheating in your book?

Outright lie yet again, please look at what you just wrote.
Male testosterone is controlled and their are limits to the amount of testosterone your body is producing before you are not allowed to compete. See Alistair Overeems famous drug test fail.

Overeem took drugs to achieve that testosterone level. It did not occur naturally in him.
You are now conflating natural conditions with elective artificial ones, ie doping. DSDers aren't doping.

Incorrect yet again. See points above about athletic commissions.
Disgusting to you in a different sense to the rest of the posters here.

Irrelevant.
Regardless of outcome and test findings, this is not the sort of thing that should be aired publicly.

The boxer in this case has been assessed though, by two different labs - the thing you're demanding has been done. It's on the IOC to reintroduce sex testing.

So what's the issue?
If it has been definitively proven (as previously described) they have male level advantages, then you just remove them and sweep them confidentially under the carpet, no?

But you just said you accept the males have an advantage over females?

Ah, so you actually read what I said, this time?

What's the reason you think 5-ARD athletes don't have a similar advantage to other males - why would their penis not developing properly prevent them from say running well or boxing?

Depends on the individual and whether their specific case shows that their body made proper use of DHT or not. Chand being an example of the latter, and why you need to assess in detail at the individual level.

No, I'm pointing out that if you think there is a difference in ability between regular males and intersex males with male advantages - say PAS not giving a full advantage - then we have events for people with different abilities as a result of their medical conditions - the Paralympics.

If they have male advantages, then they're male. They're not disabled. It's that simple.

You seem to want to go off on some tangential semantic argument re: whether to give the label "disability" to DSD conditions but you've got an inherently flawed position then.

Again, your tangent not mine....

If you don't think there is a difference in ability then they should compete as males, right?

Which is what I said.

If you do then... as mentioned already above, Paralympic events.

Doesn't matter if there's a difference at the male levels - If it's male level advantage then they're out of the female category. End of.

Exactly - there are some intersex conditions where there is no impact from it, those people are usually mentioned to muddy the waters/obfuscate the issue, they're typically not very athletic and rare to see at the Olympics but could compete as females as they have no male advantages.

Which is where I drew the line.

There are other male intersex athletes who might well have been raised as if they were female out of convenience//practicality, might still socialise as if they're females etc.. but clearly have a male advantage.
The obvious solutions here are either:
1) Run as men.
2) Have a separate event in the Paralympics.

Presumably you'll also be directing al your average Kent running club lot to the Paralympics too, then?
If not, why not?

You don't need solution 2). The first one is fine.

The second is suggested because for some of these conditions, the male advantage conferred by 5-ARD or PAIS can be variable. They might not see themselves as "disabled" socially but they're males with a medical condition that caused them to not fully develop their (external) male private parts but that still confers male advantages, those male advantages are partial ergo they can be argued to be "differently abled" vs normal males who don't have those conditions.

If it's male level advantage, they go in the male category.
The issue is with those who may or may not still have an advantage, but not to male levels. They still belong in the female category

In neither case do competitors have disabilities. The Paralympics just isn't an option.

 

[sidimmu]

The link shows a bunch of numbers. It contains nothing that actually explains the reasons behind it. You're inferring everything else.

So world record differences from men and women show nothing do they? These show the direct advantage you are trying to argue does not exist.
Keep chatting out your backside.

I am not even going to go through the rest of your nonsense reply, as that what it is, nonsense.

Long story short is that you disagree with everything and anyone that is showing a level of safety for the well being of others.
You can say you don't all you want, but maybe you should take a better look at how you present your discussion points.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So world record differences from men and women show nothing do they? These show the direct advantage you are trying to argue does not exist.

They only show that one side has higher achievements. They do not explain anything. They are just stats. They have no context.

Long story short is that you disagree with everything and anyone that is showing a level of safety for the well being of others.

Long story short, you're outright making stuff up as you can't even manage to misrepresent my own argument properly.

maybe you should take a better look at how you present your discussion points.

Hello Kettle, Hello Kettle. This is Pot. Black. Over.....

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

As an exogenous supplement, yes, but the question remains as to whether endogenous testosterone provides the same advantage, and under what circumstances. This latter aspect is considerably variable between individuals, hence it's not yet definitive.

Yeah. The onus is now on you to start proving your claims.

You can start with proving that there are questions on the benefits of endogenous testosterone to physical performance.

Only if their body properly uses it, which is not the case in certain DSD types, hence them already being cleared to compete as women.

You can then move onto proving this point.