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

[sidimmu]

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

The topic was advantages and differences in performance between men and women.
But thanks for clearing up that you struggle to follow the context of the conversation.

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

Its a pleasure to see you struggle. Reality is, unless we address everything in a single post every time anyone replies to you, by the time you read and respond you have completely forgotten the context of what was being discussed.

 

[dowie]

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.

That's what everyone else has been arguing in favour of FFS!

Glad you're finally starting to see some sense here.

The Algerian boxer shouldn't have been in the women's boxing, and Semenya shouldn't have been running against women (and neither should the other 800m finalists in that event).

There's a reasonable argument for a Paralympic event as the male advantage can be partial, but those biological males with male advantage (such as males who are trans women and males with DSDs such as 5-ARD) clearly shouldn't be competing with females.

 

[ttaskmaster]

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.

The CAS already did that, and this was already hashed out with studies linked earlier in the thread.

In summary, it was found that:
- Both exogenous and endogenous testosterone provides some advantage.
- Exogenous provided a much higher advantage than endogenous.
- Both advantages/responses were vastly more pronounced in women than in men.
- Endogenous testosterone levels are cyclical and can vary greatly in all women.

"In order to justify excluding an individual from competing in a particular category on the basis of a naturally occurring characteristic such as endogenous testosterone, it is not enough simply to establish that the characteristic has some performance enhancing effect. Instead, the IAAF needs to establish that the characteristic in question confers such a significant performance advantage over other members of the category that allowing individuals with that characteristic to compete would subvert the very basis for having the separate category and thereby prevent a level playing field. The degree or magnitude of the advantage is therefore critical".

Different scientists have differing opinions, hence it's still in question.

expert reaction to ruling on caster semenya appeal regarding athletes with differences of sex development and testosterone levels | Science Media Centre

The point remains that naturally ocurring endogenous testosterone is not the same as doping exogenously, and the advantage (if any) is also not the same.

You can then move onto proving this point.

Again, evidenced by the subsequent CAS rulings to allow some individuals with high endogenous testosterone, while excluding others also with high endogenous testosterone, which was based on individual manifestations of conditions, whether they derived any advantage from it, and whether that advantage was significant enough to be unfair on fellow participants.

The topic was advantages and differences in performance between men and women.
But thanks for clearing up that you struggle to follow the context of the conversation.

You're projecting again. The topic was the causes of the different performances between the sexes.
You merely posted a link to some numbers, which say nothing about the reasons behind them.

Its a pleasure to see you struggle. Reality is, unless we address everything in a single post every time anyone replies to you, by the time you read and respond you have completely forgotten the context of what was being discussed.

More projection. You ignore the context, which is why you get lost in your tangents. I merely respond to what you post.

That's what everyone else has been arguing in favour of FFS!
Glad you're finally starting to see some sense here.

I've never argued otherwise.
My point has always been that it must first be definitively proven, for which science has yet to come to a consensus, and that it should be done in the strictest confidentiality, rather than being thrown to the wolves of the Social Media Court. Unless it's with the express consent of teh individuals concerned, We The Public, should not be hearing a single word about who might have internal ******** and whose girly bits look a little bit pronounced.

The Algerian boxer shouldn't have been in the women's boxing, and Semenya shouldn't have been running against women (and neither should the other 800m finalists in that event).

Again, prove it with robust and unbiassed science before making the call, and do it in private.

There's a reasonable argument for a Paralympic event as the male advantage can be partial, but those biological males with male advantage (such as males who are trans women and males with DSDs such as 5-ARD) clearly shouldn't be competing with females.

Bio-males go in the bio-male category.
As you yourself have pointed out, there are many men in Kent running clubs with higher testosterone who couldn't compete with the DSDers, and many men with much lower testosterone who still achieve Olympic level performances. Neither of these need to be in the Paralympics, so neither do DSD males with male-level advantages.

 

[dowie]

Again, prove it with robust and unbiassed science before making the call, and do it in private.

Prove what - what are you disputing here? You accept that biological men should be competing with other men no?

Bio-males go in the bio-male category.
As you yourself have pointed out, there are many men in Kent running clubs with higher testosterone who couldn't compete with the DSDers, and many men with much lower testosterone who still achieve Olympic level performances. Neither of these need to be in the Paralympics, so neither do DSD males with male-level advantages.

That's again a flawed argument on your part, you had a lot of trouble understanding it in the first place.

There are men in Paralympic events who might beat people from local running clubs - the point is they have some medical disadvantage/disability. Someone partially sighted can still run.

These DSD individuals have advantages over women from being biologically male but that can be partial, thus you could have an event for people with that medical condition.

 

[Caracus2k]

We have to understand are dealing with a profoundly ignorant and quasi religious mindset here.

And much like religious beliefs the corrupting influence can be so strong that even people claiming supposed expertise in the field can come out with the most ridiculous of claims.

A recent example was this message from a supposed 'biochemist' running for political office.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1828842655918571541

She's so engrossed in her own ignorance that, as has been pointed out by multiple people below in the comments, that her own source shows she's talking nonsnece.

With the XX and XY karyotype being listed as the "most common form" of female and male obviously meaning that the other (much rarer) karyotypes are the 'less common' forms for females and males, hence two sexes not six (or more)!

But yet she's claiming this is 'evidence' of, at least, six 'sexes'!

Again, prove it with robust and unbiassed science before making the call,

Semenya is now unambiguously known to be male, complete with male testes. He absolutely never should have been allowed to complete in the women's game.

The Algerian boxer could clear this up simply with a publically released lab test.

They won't through because they and their team know what the result would be as the tests have already be run and so have embarked on a ridiculous PR campaign of trying to 'prove' he's a woman via releasing soft focus photos of him wearing make-up and 'womans' clothes.

The IOC has completly beclowed themselves with their thoroughly insufficient stance that a 'female' marker in a passport is sufficient for a person to qualify to compete in the womans game.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Prove what - what are you disputing here? You accept that biological men should be competing with other men no?

I'm not disputing anything.
I'm just saying it must be definitively proven and the results not splashed all over the public domain. If this is done, then there's no problem.

There are men in Paralympic events who might beat people from local running clubs - the point is they have some medical disadvantage/disability. Someone partially sighted can still run.

Disability/disadvantage compared to a standard human, yes.
DSD is a difference, not a disability, and if they can beat local club athletes then good for them.

These DSD individuals have advantages over women from being biologically male but that can be partial, thus you could have an event for people with that medical condition.

But they're no longer in the female category, by the nature of that advantage over women, so now they're just in the standard male category and it's up to them how well they perform.

But yet she's claiming this is 'evidence' of, at least, six 'sexes'!

Again, I don't use ******* so cannot see the wider context, but in just this post I don't see her actually specifying either way. The fact that it was still phrased to reflect two sexes is adequate.
I would say that she should do her due dilligence before directly quoting 'scientific' articles by a managing director of private asset management firm, though...!!

Semenya is now unambiguously known to be male, complete with male testes. He absolutely never should have been allowed to complete in the women's game.

So?

All that matters is whether she has been proven to have unfair male-level advantages.
Other athletes with similar conditions have been allowed to compete, because those individuals did not have such advantages.

The Algerian boxer could clear this up simply with a publically released lab test.

They shouldn't have to, though. The only people seeing those lab results should be the lab, the sporting officials and the candidate being tested.
If it results in the candidate being pulled, confidentiality should remain.

They won't through because they and their team know what the result would be as the tests have already be run and so have embarked on a ridiculous PR campaign of trying to 'prove' he's a woman via releasing soft focus photos of him wearing make-up and 'womans' clothes.

Doesn't matter - If the officials rule she is a he, it's game over unless he later decides to compete as male.

The IOC has completly beclowed themselves with their thoroughly insufficient stance that a 'female' marker in a passport is sufficient for a person to qualify to compete in the womans game.

It's wrong, yes, but it's now enough to permit male-born individuals into biologically female-only private forums in Australia...

 

[dowie]

I'm not disputing anything.
I'm just saying it must be definitively proven and the results not splashed all over the public domain. If this is done, then there's no problem.

It was, the controversy arose because the rules changed.

Disability/disadvantage compared to a standard human, yes.
DSD is a difference, not a disability, and if they can beat local club athletes then good for them.

You're getting some numeracy issues again (the same mistake you made earlier in this very thread), there's a distribution of abilities. It's not like all men run the 100 meters at exactly the same pace.

That some women can beat some men doesn't negate that men (in general) have an advantage over women.

And likewise some DSD males with male advantages perhaps only have a partial advantage over women when compared with regular males without that medical condition. That some of the very best males in the world with that DSD condition are competitive with local club runners ought to illustrate that... the typical male with a given DSD condition might have an advantage over women but a disadvantage vs regular men.

I'm not saying you need to agree or disagree with the proposal but at least try and understand the argument made. They have a disadvantage as a result of a medical condition - an advantage over women and a disadvantage vs normal men ergo there can be a valid argument for a special event. The semantics of whether you want to apply the label "disability" to their condition isn't relevant to that point as it applies regardless of the label given.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It was, the controversy arose because the rules changed.

Then again, if it was definitively proven and individuals' privacy protected, there's no problem.

the typical male with a given DSD condition might have an advantage over women but a disadvantage vs regular men.

Doesn't matter.
If it's male-level advantage, they're in the regular male category, end of.
If they're so disadvantaged that they can't even beat your Kent club runner in a race, they're still in the regular male category... and probably stood next to most of the posters in this forum.

They have a disadvantage as a result of a medical condition - an advantage over women and a disadvantage vs normal men ergo there can be a valid argument for a special event.

Except that the dis/advantage does not arise from any form of disability.

The semantics of whether you want to apply the label "disability" to their condition isn't relevant to that point as it applies regardless of the label given.

The whole issue arises because you're basing your argument on the conflation of perceived disadvantage with documented disability.
In any other area of normal life, DSD is not considered a disability - Are they missing any limbs? (I hate it when they have missing limbs*) Are they blind? Do they have any condition which would affect normal daily life and/or entitle them to a Blue Badge?

Paralympics is about people with a disability, who can still compete. It requires that you have a disability in the first place.
DSDers are no more disabled than a PCOS or post-hysterectomy woman, even then arguably less so, and those with male-level advantage can clearly run better than most able-bodied women, so again it's not a disability.



*Before anyone gets on their high horse, this is a quote from a film. I've waited since 1983 to get that one in somewhere!

 

[dowie]

If it's male-level advantage, they're in the regular male category, end of.

But that's the point, it isn't necessarily - it can be in between!

Except that the dis/advantage does not arise from any form of disability.

The disadvantage is from a genetic defect they were born with, it's a condition that is defined medically - whether you give it the label "disability" or not is semantics, that's a subjective/political choice, the argument is the same regardless but for some reason, you're still struggling with following a basic argument even after it's been explained to you.

Can you understand that a T20/F20 athlete doesn't have a specific physical disability but rather has a low IQ, they compete in the Paralympics because those issues with cognitive performance can have some impact on their ability to participate in sports? You've gone off on one about missing limbs but that's missing the point and a T20 athlete isn't missing limbs either.

Why not reply with an argument instead of pointing out the thing that was already acknowledged in the first place - yes it's not labeled as a "disability", the point is there could be a third event.

 

[ttaskmaster]

But that's the point, it isn't necessarily - it can be in between!

Not really....
If they don't have a male-level advantage, they should be fine to compete as women.

The disadvantage is from a genetic defect they were born with, it's a condition that is defined medically

It's defined as a Difference of Sexual Development, not a defect and not a disability.

whether you give it the label "disability" or not is semantics, that's a subjective/political choice, the argument is the same regardless but for some reason, you're still struggling with following a basic argument even after it's been explained to you.

You're having the same difficulty, it seems.
DSD does not affect their normal day-today living, so it's not a disability. Paralympic and Special events are for people who do have a disability.

Can you understand that a T20/F20 athlete doesn't have a specific physical disability but rather has a low IQ, they compete in the Paralympics because those issues with cognitive performance can have some impact on their ability to participate in sports?

Can you also understand that the low IQ must also be judged as a disability for their normal life, as well?
It's an officially recognised disability, not just an athletic disadvantage.

"Athletics is open to ID sportspeople. Internationally, T20 and F20 are the classes used. For sportspeople in this class, they need to have a maximum IQ of 75 using the WISC-R or WAIS-III system, have had their disability manifested and documented prior to being 18 years old, and have demonstrated issues with self-care and interpersonal interactions".

What 'disability' does a DSDer have?

You've gone off on one about missing limbs but that's missing the point and a T20 athlete isn't missing limbs either.

I know.. and I don't care - I got the film reference in, which is honestly more important to me.

Why not reply with an argument instead of pointing out the thing that was already acknowledged in the first place - yes it's not labeled as a "disability", the point is there could be a third event.

There still could... but it won't be the Paralympics.

 

[dowie]

Not really....
If they don't have a male-level advantage, they should be fine to compete as women.

But the argument was they have an advantage in between that of regular men and women so your response is flawed, it doesn't logically follow that they're fine to compete against women you're either still struggling to follow a really basic argument or just pretending you don't understand because you've argued your way into some ridiculous positions in this thread.

It's defined as a Difference of Sexual Development, not a defect and not a disability.

Again, you're arguing about semantics/definitions of disability when the argument you're replying to isn't reliant on that.

For the sake of argument (because of this hangup you're having and that you seemingly can't put aside to focus on the argument made) let's suggest a trans & DSD Olympics run in parallel to the Paralympics but officially all those races are not Paralympic events but part of that separate twinned event. Or we could rebrand it the Paralympics and DSD and trans Olympics... whatever allows you to mentally decouple and focus on the actual argument.

Do you want to address the argument made re: them competing in a separate event rather than going off on a tangent about semantics re: definitions of disability?

 

[ttaskmaster]

But the argument was they have an advantage in between that of regular men and women so your response is flawed, it doesn't logically follow that they're fine to compete against women you're either still struggling to follow a really basic argument or just pretending you don't understand because you've argued your way into some ridiculous positions in this thread.

If they have an advantage in between, as per Semenya's (what was it) >2% against most (but not all) of her peers, then it's down to the limits imposed by the regulating bodies.
If the advantage is still deemed too much for the female category, then they go in the male category.
If they're not good enough to compete against other men, even those in amateur Kent clubs, then they're stuck at home playing Daley Thompson's Decathlon on Spectrum 48Ks like the rest of us.

No need for a special category or separate set of events.

Again, you're arguing about semantics/definitions of disability when the argument you're replying to isn't reliant on that.

OK, fine, go ahead and put the able-bodied lot in the disabled box... and then open this very same discussion when they object using the very same criteria I used to oppose your argument.

For the sake of argument (because of this hangup you're having and that you seemingly can't put aside to focus on the argument made) let's suggest a trans & DSD Olympics run in parallel to the Paralympics but officially all those races are not Paralympic events but part of that separate twinned event. Or we could rebrand it the Paralympics and DSD and trans Olympics... whatever allows you to mentally decouple and focus on the actual argument.

What for?
DSDers can still fit into existing boxes, for the most part.
Trans athletes have voluntarily altered themselves from their natural state, thus rendering themselves either inelligible or restricted to their original category, both due to inescapable unfair biological advantage.

Do you want to address the argument made re: them competing in a separate event rather than going off on a tangent about semantics re: definitions of disability?

I already addressed that part ages back, as well as just recently.
You insist on maintaining the position of the Paralympics being the answer, despite DSD not meeting any of their criteria.

 

[dowie]

If they have an advantage in between, as per Semenya's (what was it) >2% against most (but not all) of her peers, then it's down to the limits imposed by the regulating bodies.
If the advantage is still deemed too much for the female category, then they go in the male category.

Why not a third event?

You insist on maintaining the position of the Paralympics being the answer, despite DSD not meeting any of their criteria.

Nope, you still have the hangup that was already addressed - I specifically modified the argument for you to *not* the Paralympics but a separate DSD and trans event because you just go off on a tangent about the definition of a disability rather than address the argument of there being a third event - do you want to try again?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Why not a third event?

As above - Don't need one.

Nope, you still have the hangup that was already addressed - I specifically modified the argument for you to *not* the Paralympics but a separate DSD and trans event because you just go off on a tangent about the definition of a disability rather than address the argument of there being a third event - do you want to try again?

As above - Don't need one.

Or you could still bring Paralympics back into it by conflating the different event concepts, just to try and reinforce your argument for the Paralympics... because if it were that simple and ingenuous, you'd have either dropped the Paralympic mentions at the first pointing out of the DSDers' inelligibility, or just argued for a totally separate event anyway.

Either way - Still don't need one, as above.

 

[Fire Wizard]

I am not knowledgeable enough about Differences in Sex Development (DSD) conditions to know the answers so this is a rather ill-informed post but I am interested none the less. If we define a biological male or female based on whether or not you have XY (Male) or XX (Female) Chromosomes, referencing this NHS page here, there seems to be one DSD condition in particular where you could argue that person has a potential advantage over their competitors. That condition is known as 46,XX ovotesticular DSD and seems to predominantly affect females, as defined by the fact they have XX chromosomes.

Sex characteristics usually seen in males or females:

Some people with a very rare type of DSD have both ovarian and testicular tissue (sometimes one ovary and one testis). Their genitals may appear female or male or could look different from either.

Most people with this type of DSD have XX (female) chromosomes. The cause is not usually clear, but some people with the condition have been found to have genetic material that's usually seen on the Y chromosome appearing on their X chromosome.

Doctors refer to this condition as 46,XX ovotesticular DSD.

The reason you could deduce they have a potential advantage is due to the part highlighted in bold and italics. Should there be a separate category for people with this condition because they are biologically female, as defined by XX chromosomes, but they have a potential advantage due to genetic material seen on the Y chromosome appearing on their X chromosome.

 

[dowie]

As above - Don't need one.


As above - Don't need one.

Or you could still bring Paralympics back into it by conflating the different event concepts, just to try and reinforce your argument for the Paralympics... because if it were that simple and ingenuous, you'd have either dropped the Paralympic mentions at the first pointing out of the DSDers' inelligibility, or just argued for a totally separate event anyway.

Either way - Still don't need one, as above.

Why is that a reason to oppose it?

We don't need a Paralympics either but it's useful to have one - presumably, you don't oppose having a Paralympics despite it not being needed?

As I said before we could just say they run/compete in the men's events but they do have a disadvantage vs regular men as a result of their condition and so we could cater to this with separate events just as we do for disabilities with the Paralympics.

 

[Caracus2k]

I am not knowledgeable enough about Differences in Sex Development (DSD) conditions to know the answers so this is a rather ill-informed post but I am interested none the less. If we define a biological male or female based on whether or not you have XY (Male) or XX (Female) Chromosomes

The defintion of sex doesn't mention chromosomes because there are not how sex is defined but rather how it's *determined* in humans.

And even then that's not quite accurate as it is genes on thoose chromosome that determine sex, but again that's in humans and not in most other sexually reproducing species.

The confusion comes because if you say human males have XY chromosomes and women XX chromosomes you'd be right in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Much like even a very low IQ person could accurately observe a newborn child's sex, with extreme accuracy, from observing natal external primary sexual characteristics.

So when it comes to sports testing chromsome testing can only be used as a screening test and further tests might be required in a few cases.

 

[ttaskmaster]

The reason you could deduce they have a potential advantage is due to the part highlighted in bold and italics. Should there be a separate category for people with this condition because they are biologically female, as defined by XX chromosomes, but they have a potential advantage due to genetic material seen on the Y chromosome appearing on their X chromosome.

Potential advantage is not a factor.
It's only post-puberty, when certain individuals have a proven male-level advantage from having gone through puberty as males do and thus benefit from the male developments that set them above females in terms of performance.
You could have XY chomosomes, but still have fully functioning female anatomy to the point of giving birth, and it wouldn't matter - The only point at which the line is drawn is how big an advantage you have over regular olympic-level female athletes. If you have no, or only minimal, advantage then no-one cares.

We don't need a Paralympics either but it's useful to have one - presumably, you don't oppose having a Paralympics despite it not being needed?

Paralympians are still athletic to Olympic standard, and several have even competed/won against their able-bodied counterparts in both 'lympic events. The majority are considered too disadvantaged by their disability for it to be a sufficiently level playing field, though. Were it not for their disability, they'd be regular Olympic competitors.

DSDers are not disabled. Were it not for their conditions, they'd just be pretty normal people, for the most part. A few would be exceptionally athletic females, and they're generally allowed in the womens' category anyway.
Those who cannot compete as regular females but aren't good enough to go against regular male athletes are just normal people level... like you and me.
I bet you could beat an average Olympic woman, but probably not a male Kent club runner.... Do you need a special event just so you can compete... or do you accept that you're just not that much of an athlete?

As I said before we could just say they run/compete in the men's events but they do have a disadvantage vs regular men as a result of their condition and so we could cater to this with separate events just as we do for disabilities with the Paralympics.

Only if you start including everyone else on the planet who has a disadvantage due to some condition or other...
Obesity? Pathological laziness? Ingrowing toenails? Dyslexia? Sign on up for the Dowielympics!!

 

[dowie]

Paralympians are still athletic to Olympic standard, and several have even competed/won against their able-bodied counterparts in both 'lympic events. The majority are considered too disadvantaged by their disability for it to be a sufficiently level playing field, though. Were it not for their disability, they'd be regular Olympic competitors.

That's not necessarily true at all

Only if you start including everyone else on the planet who has a disadvantage due to some condition or other...
Obesity? Pathological laziness? Ingrowing toenails? Dyslexia? Sign on up for the Dowielympics!!

You could make the same argument re: the Paralympics - the whole point of those events is that people have a disadvantage due to their conditions.

Throwing in deliberately absurd conditions is a poor attempt at an argument.

 

[Grim5]

The defintion of sex doesn't mention chromosomes because there are not how sex is defined but rather how it's *determined* in humans.

And even then that's not quite accurate as it is genes on thoose chromosome that determine sex, but again that's in humans and not in most other sexually reproducing species.

The confusion comes because if you say human males have XY chromosomes and women XX chromosomes you'd be right in the overwhelming majority of cases.

Much like even a very low IQ person could accurately observe a newborn child's sex, with extreme accuracy, from observing natal external primary sexual characteristics.

So when it comes to sports testing chromsome testing can only be used as a screening test and further tests might be required in a few cases.

The whole issue can be linked to testosterone as well.

Studies show that the range of average female testosterone is between 0.5 and 2.4 mmo/l, annd anything under 0.5 potentially means a health issue and above 2.4 can signal steroid abuse.

And if they enforced these rules at the highest levels of sport it would be fine.

But the IOC states that for athletes who appear to be between sexes can compete as female as long as their testosterone level is no more than 5nmol/l. But if a XX female tested at 5 she'd be suspected of roids and cop a suspension

So quite literally, by the rules set by the IOC, inter gender or mixed gender athletes are allows to compete against females, while their blood contains more than double the allowed level of testosterone females have. How's this fair