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

[dowie]

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

It's not fair and there are other advantages too, things like height in basketball.

Sports need to be separated by biological sex not gender identity, if there's lots of demand for the inclusion of DSD and trans people though then that can be facilitated with separate events just as we already run in the Paralympics.

 

[Caracus2k]

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

The characterisation of people as being 'mixed' or 'inter' 'gender' is almost always totally incorrect as well.

We saw this with Semenya who has previously been described as being 'a female with high testosterone' or being 'between' the sexes.

When we now know, without doubt, that Semenya is male complete with testes.

The whole testosterone reduction palaver in his case should never of happened.

He should have been excluded from the female category for the simple reason that he is male.

Or at least that's how sporting categories should work.

Females sports categories are for females not for males with DSD's or other issues that would make them uncompetitive in elite male sports.

Women's sports aren't there as a back up plan for weak(ened) men.

 

[bigmike20vt]

I was thinking about this briefly last night..

For one second if we take the view that some people have that trans people DONT have a biological advantage (or therefore conversely disadvantage) in sports...

then someone please answer me these 2 questions

1) why are there as many trans athletes as there are in women's sport? IF they have no inherent advantage then percentage wise would we expect there to be as many as there are at the pinnacle of women's sports? (or is this assumption incorrect and the percentage of trans women at the Olympics is no greater than in society as a whole?)

2) shoe on the other foot, if being trans in women's sports offers no advantage, then conversely being trans in mens sports should not be a disadvantage either.... So why have there been (to my knowledge) no trans men competing in any male sports at the sharp end?

Personally I have no problem at all with people changing their gender identity, and in 99% of instances I would happily treat them as their chosen gender....... But that does not mean that there are not sometimes occasions where unfortunately their core biology must surely be respected... Not because of some anti trans hatred but to be fair to the natural born females competing....

Even if it is unfair on the trans person, its imperfect but better to be unfair to the 1% than it is to the 99% imo (mr Spok worded it better)

 

[Hotwired]

I was surprised to hear that the athlete competing and winning in the womens category has personally fathered two daughters.

So they have functional testes. The organs known since ancient times to be the cause of people known as "men" acquiring their physical development and from that, greater peak performance. Yoinking the balls off humans and animals to prevent development is very old.

Gee I wonder what kind of rule could definitively separate a "mens" and "womens" category even if you had to rename them to be inclusive to people with abnormal development of sexual characteristics.

Certainly feels perverse that smuggling testes enabled people into a womens category is a thing because of a social label of "woman".

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's not necessarily true at all

Which part?
The requirement for high athletic ability despite the disability, or the pretty obvious fact that they'd be even higher without the disability?

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.

But still have high athletic ability.
DSDers who cannot compete as female elite athletes due to condition, but cannot compete against male elite athletes because they aren't athletic enough do not have athletic ability higher than other normal males.

In short, they're just like you. You're not an elite athlete, are you?

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

So why then did you suggest that normal non-elite level athletes need a special event in which to compete?
It's a pretty absurd condition, hence my ****-taking.

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

The presence of high testosterone alone has been proven to be meaningless.
What matters is how well the body uses that testosterone to develop the characteristics (higher muscle mass, greater bone density, increased lung capacity) that give males a higher performance level.
Some intersex athletes have male-level advantages as a result of the higher testosterone use, others' bodies do not respond to testosterone at all so gain no advantage. In the latter cases, most will also externally appear completely female, so as far as any measure that matters goes, they are as good as female and can compete as one.

Think of it as measuring the amount of high-octane super-duper high powered crude oil in your car... when it's got a diesel engine.

 

[dowie]

Which part?
The requirement for high athletic ability despite the disability, or the pretty obvious fact that they'd be even higher without the disability?

That they'd be in the Olympics but for their disability - that's clearly false and the same applies to the intersex and trans athletes.

DSDers who cannot compete as female elite athletes due to condition, but cannot compete against male elite athletes because they aren't athletic enough do not have athletic ability higher than other normal males.

Correct - that's the whole point, they've got an advantage vs females but a disadvantage vs regular males thus the suggestion for there to be a separate event. Just as we provide a separate event for people with say physical disabilities as they also have a disadvantage vs regular people.

So why then did you suggest that normal non-elite level athletes need a special event in which to compete?

Again, I didn't! There doesn't need to be a Paralympics either - why is "need" an argument against this proposal?

The proposal again is that elite DSD athletes have separate events just as we already provide for elite disabled athletes.

 

[sidimmu]

The presence of high testosterone alone has been proven to be meaningless.

Hahahahahhahshahahahahah

Sorry let me try again....

Hahahahahhahshahahahahah

But seriously, no, just no.

Testosterone is to be controlled per sex/category whatever you want to use.
It has to be controlled in combat sports to ensure people do not have excessive and unnatural power/abilities.
It should therefore be controlled in all sports.

Either way, the same story still applies.
If you are intersex, confused sex, trans whatever, you should not be competing in a natural sex category.
But you don't like that outcome, which is why you challenge whilst completely ignoring the sensible route forward.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That they'd be in the Olympics but for their disability - that's clearly false and the same applies to the intersex and trans athletes.

In spite of the disabilities they are still elite level athletes, some of whom have beaten able-bodied elite level athletes. Clearly it follows that they'd be even better were it not for their disability.
Intersex with male advantage are not elite enough to even compete against regular male athletes.

Again, I didn't! There doesn't need to be a Paralympics either - why is "need" an argument against this proposal?

The need is the levelling of the playing field in elite athletics, so that those who have the athleticism can still exhibit it.
Outside of the female category, Intersex do not have that same athleticism so don't need the event.

The proposal again is that elite DSD athletes have separate events just as we already provide for elite disabled athletes.

And again, I reject your proposal.

But you don't like that outcome, which is why you challenge whilst completely ignoring the sensible route forward.

The sensible route forward would be for you to read on how testosterone works and understand why it's not the defining factor. It's already been covered in the thread, so you have no excuse.
Dowie at least seems to have some understanding of the background and why I oppose the outcome on that basis...

 

[sidimmu]

The sensible route forward would be for you to read on how testosterone works and understand why it's not the defining factor. It's already been covered in the thread, so you have no excuse.

Testosterone is not the defining factor, but it is a significant factor which should be overlooked.

Again I focus on combat sports, where testosterone has to be controlled for the safety of competitors, something you are constantly arguing against.

Amazing how you choose to ignore the rest of my reply, thats very unlike you. I was expecting a 19 paragraph reply.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Testosterone is not the defining factor, but it is a significant factor which should be overlooked.

ONLY under two specific conditions:

1/. Exogenous testosterone, ie doping.
2/. Endongenous* testosterone, if the individual's body does convert it to DHT and thus derives an advantage from it.

Without either of these conditions being met, testosterone levels mean nothing. This is why Chand could stay where Semenya was booted.

Again I focus on combat sports, where testosterone has to be controlled for the safety of competitors, something you are constantly arguing against.

Again, only if doping or DHT-based advantage*.
Outside of that, testosterone levels and the control of them are not factors.

Amazing how you choose to ignore the rest of my reply, thats very unlike you. I was expecting a 19 paragraph reply.

That time it was relatively easy to just boil it down to the primary flawed premise on which you based your assertion, and discard the irrelevant crap.


*Both these refer to individuals presenting as female, regardless of intersex, trans or anything else. Male classification has no limit on endogenous testosterone.

 

[dowie]

In spite of the disabilities they are still elite level athletes, some of whom have beaten able-bodied elite level athletes. Clearly it follows that they'd be even better were it not for their disability.

That's true of DSD athletes too where they've got a partial male advantage, they'd be even better if not for that.

Intersex with male advantage are not elite enough to even compete against regular male athletes.

Nor are Paralympic athletes necessarily. It's the same issue in principle save for the semantics of whether the disadvantage they're born with si a "disability" or a medical condition.

 

[darkgen]

I'm still agog why such a low percentage of the global population who identifies or presents as transgender also then want to represent themselves in professional athletics as their desired sex. Such a song and dance.

e: whoops; I've replied thinking this was the other thread about the Olympics. Ignore my flagrant prosaicness.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's true of DSD athletes too where they've got a partial male advantage, they'd be even better if not for that.

Likely not, given that those with full male advantage still aren't anything special even at non-elite levels. They'd have more virilised genitalia, but physically they'd be somewhere below Kent running club males.

Nor are Paralympic athletes necessarily.

You crayz, bru????!!!!
The whole point of the Paralympics is that Paralympians are still world class athletes in their own right. The facts that the Olympics does not prevent from disabled people competing in the regular events, that Paralympians have gone on to compete in the regular Olympics, and that Olympians have, after a tragedy, continued in the Paralympics, is surely enough testament to that... and even those that haven't done both are still up against the sort of competition who have, so their game has to be somewhere close to even consider competing.

I'm sure there are performance results you can Google if you care enough, to compare against those of the Kent club athletes.

It's the same issue in principle save for the semantics of whether the disadvantage they're born with si a "disability" or a medical condition.

Except that it's a flawed premise - DSDers who cross the threshold of advantage are not special. They're just normal blokes, in terms of performance, so belong in the 'not good enough to be an Olympian' box alongside most of the population... and if you think that's a disadvantage worthy of a special event, you just opened it up the that same majority of the population.

 

[dowie]

You crayz, bru????!!!!
The whole point of the Paralympics is that Paralympians are still world class athletes in their own right.

Nope, there are plenty of people who were fit/amateur athlete level and wouldn't have been at the regular Olympics.

But with a qualifying disability, you can take a fit amature athlete level person and they can become a Paralympic athlete - which is why for example soldiers disabled in Afghanistan make for good candidates as potential Paralympic athletes - they'd not have been regular Olympians but as a generally fit person who is now minus a leg they're potential paralympians.

Read about our veterans in the paralympic games

We're extremely proud our performance military athletes represent their country at the Paralympic and Commonwealth games. Find out more.

www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Except that it's a flawed premise

It isn't, your premise is flawed as per the above. This is a similar situation to the Paralympics - some athletes have a disadvantage ergo we can have separate events for them.

First, you tried to oppose that idea by arguing semantics re: disability and now you're trying to put forth some flawed notion that the paralympic athletes would be in the regular Olympics but for their disability, some might but most wouldn't.

This is just another stats issue - the disabled population is a small fraction of the able-bodied population for a start and plenty of disabled people struggle with basic tasks let alone sports, you're talking about a relatively small pool of potential athletes and yet the number of athletes involved it's like nearly 5k athletes and 10k for the regular Olympics so clearly they're not all would have been regular Olympians but for disability far from it as the fit/injured soldier -> Paralympic athletes show.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Nope, there are plenty of people who were fit/amateur athlete level and wouldn't have been at the regular Olympics.

Given the differences between their respective minimum performance qualifiers, most of the Paras would obviously be pretty close to regular Olympic qualifiers without the disability.
If they are, as you assert, not even good enough to compete against regular non-elite athletes, then why do they have minimum performance qualifiers before even being selected? And how is it that Paras have managed to beat regular Olympians, in both events?

^Those latter Paras are the top level, but they're the ones any prospective competitor has to be at least close to in order to even bother competing.

But with a qualifying disability, you can take a fit amature athlete level person and they can become a Paralympic athlete - which is why for example soldiers disabled in Afghanistan make for good candidates as potential Paralympic athletes - they'd not have been regular Olympians but as a generally fit person who is now minus a leg they're potential paralympians.

If they're already Paralympic standard with a disability
Given the high fitness standards and sporting culture of the military, and that the Olympics and other sporting events are well-known for having both current and former military competitors, your suggestion that they couldn't have been Olympians is rather dubious. Soldiers disabled in Afghanistan make good candidates primarily because they're no longer occupied with their day job of blowing up the Taliban and have the time to focus on their athletics.

It isn't, your premise is flawed as per the above. This is a similar situation to the Paralympics - some athletes have a disadvantage ergo we can have separate events for them.

Paras still come close to Olympic entry performance in spite of their disability.
DSDers don't even come close, and they get even worse if you medicate them.

They don't need a special event any more than a regular joe on the street would. What you're proposing is basically participation trophies for anyone who wants to feel special.

First, you tried to oppose that idea by arguing semantics re: disability and now you're trying to put forth some flawed notion that the paralympic athletes would be in the regular Olympics but for their disability, some might but most wouldn't.

OK, so I have this disability, in that my lack of athletic ability is a disadvantage against elite level athletes - Where's my special event?

 

[dowie]

Given the differences between their respective minimum performance qualifiers, most of the Paras would obviously be pretty close to regular Olympic qualifiers without the disability.

What do you mean?

If they are, as you assert, not even good enough to compete against regular non-elite athletes, then why do they have minimum performance qualifiers before even being selected? And how is it that Paras have managed to beat regular Olympians, in both events?

What assertion are you referring to?

They don't need a special event any more than a regular joe on the street would. What you're proposing is basically participation trophies for anyone who wants to feel special.

No, you're just being obtuse now - I'm proposing something akin to the Paralympics, the only difference being that DSD conditions don't come with the "disability" label... that's the argument being presented here.

All you've done so far is divert to arguing about the label disability and then pivot to making some flawed argument about the Paralympics being at the standard of the regular Olympics which is clearly wrong.

The argument is simply that we have separate events for people with a difference of ability due to a "disability" and that the same can apply here - if you can understand that then why not address it instead of all these tangents you keep on attempting?

 

[C Kent]

what i find amusing is that there have only ever been 3 women that are faster than a man with cerebral palsy

 

[Blackjack Davy]

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'!.

This is the difference between biology and identity politics, biologically the default body plan is female the presence of a Y chromosome will result in male characteristics no matter how many other chromosomes are present. Its usually stated there are two sex chromosomes there is actually only one, the Y everything else is default female and by that I mean biological female. None of this has anything to do with gender identity politics however.

 

[ttaskmaster]

What do you mean?

I don't think that can be any simpler......

What assertion are you referring to?

Your assertion that Paralympians would not be Olympians without a disability.

No, you're just being obtuse now - I'm proposing something akin to the Paralympics, the only difference being that DSD conditions don't come with the "disability" label... that's the argument being presented here.

I know what you're proposing and it doesn't need to exist, unless you want to include everyone else who simply can't make the Olympic grade.
There's no reason for it.

All you've done so far is divert to arguing about the label disability and then pivot to making some flawed argument about the Paralympics being at the standard of the regular Olympics which is clearly wrong.

You insisted on the label, initially trying to include DSDers under it.
Now you're arguing against the very basis on which the Paralympics are founded, being the inclusion of those good enough to compete in spite of their disabilities.

The argument is simply that we have separate events for people with a difference of ability due to a "disability" and that the same can apply here - if you can understand that then why not address it instead of all these tangents you keep on attempting?

Because they're no more 'disabled' or 'disadvantaged' than some fat bloke who can't run as well as your Kent county bloke, and in many other events they're not disadvantaged at all - Ergo they don't need a special event.

 

[dowie]

Your assertion that Paralympians would not be Olympians without a disability.

Well most wouldn't as already pointed out.

I know what you're proposing and it doesn't need to exist, unless you want to include everyone else who simply can't make the Olympic grade.
There's no reason for it.

You could say the same about the Paralympics, the argument isn't about need as already pointed out.

You insisted on the label, initially trying to include DSDers under it.

No, I've repeatedly tried to get you to move away from the label aspect as it's irrelevant, rather it's the principle regardless of whether the label is used or not.