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

[dowie]

And yet when I did exactly this, you stuck your oar in and got your presuming panties all in a twist, accusing me of attempting to obfuscate.

Where? Are you saying you're deliberately feigning confusion here re: references to gender vs biological sex because of some other perceived issue? Why not just reply to whatever it is you have issue with instead of getting hung up on something you do apparently understand?

The trans athletes have personally chosen to be the way they are and have deliberately been modified of their own volition. That's fine, it's their choice, it's up to them, and they're doing pretty well out of it.
By contrast, the intersex athletes are being forced to alter themselves from their natural state, presumably against their wishes, despite having lived their lives on the understanding that they were female. My issue is that this latter case is very wrong from an ethical and moral standpoint.

Nope, not necessarily, trans people don't have to suppress homrones in order to identify as trans, neither subset are forced to do anything, both subsets are required to lower their T levels if they wish to compete.

I don't "seem" anything - I quite clearly assert that, based on the studies I've read, testosterone level is not the defining factor in sporting performance.
When Semenya did take medication, she stated "It made me sick, made me gain weight, panic attacks, I don’t know if I was ever going to have a heart attack". I expect every athlete would perform badly under those conditions.

Yesh this is just cope, it quite clearly impacts performance which is both why the limits are required and why Caster is fighting against it.

Testosterone defines your sex in the womb, and directs the development of your body during puberty. After that it's done... and yes, the biological male body can have some physical advantages over the female one, but the amount of testosterone in that body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance.

Is anyone here arguing that it's the only factor? If you concede that it does present an advantage (which it obviously does) then can't you see why there is an issue with having biological males in the female event who are affected by it and who have gone through male puberty?

 

[dowie]

The full study is linked at the top of that page, where they go into details of the above, and that also includes some links to similar studies.

Ultimately though, you could be 7' tall, with massive bellows for lungs, and a 55" running pace, or have two dicks and three breasts... but none of it matters if the ONLY thing the regulations go by is testosterone level at the time of testing.

That isn't a good argument against having that regulation though, that other factors can also present an advantage doesn't negate that this does too.

 

[dowie]

You took issue with that, got your presumed panties in a twist and went off on a tangent with it.

There's no tangent here just directly addressing what you said:

She is genetically male and yet, in spite of this, most people, including you, still refer to her as a female.

You've conflated gender identity and sex/biology that's all. It's been explained to you several times now and you're apparently unable to grasp it. I think that problem perhaps explains your muddled thinking re: the issue in general.

The issue is with people not being allowed to compete exactly as they were born, and with others deciding their 'identity' for them in pretty harsh and insensitively public life-changing manners.
[...]
The amount of testosterone in the body has not been shown to definitively govern sporting performance, yet it is the only measure being used by which to judge individuals, based on flawed and contested science.

They are allowed to compete as they're born and no one is deciding their identity for them. They can freely compete in the men's event but if, as biological males, they want to compete in the women's event then they have obvious physical differences a major one being testosterone.

Are you unaware of things like doping where people use testosterone to seek an unfair advantage?

Do you think anyone should be able to compete in the women's event or do you think that there shouldn't even be separate men's and women's events since you're apparently in denial of testosterone having an impact here?

 

[dowie]

Fine - Remove those male athletes with t-levels lower than 10nmol and especially the 5nmol from the male events, as they're clearly below the 10nmol threshold for the male category, based on their "obvious differences" in testosterone level....They have female levels, so can compete in the womens' events.
Yes, they have physical differences, but the regulations only care about current testosterone levels, not what might have happened as a result of that testosterone years ago during their long-since-ended puberty....

Why the whataboutery/deflection? If low T men are able to compete then what's the issue? Are you aware of any low T men winning medals?

Why are you asking this? You already know what my position on that is, as I've stated it numerous times.
There is no "in denial", there's just no reliable proof and so I reject your assertion... and I'm STILL waiting for you to provide your own proof, as I have been since the previous thread.

Sorry you're just deflecting here, I'm asking because you sperge out frequently and deflect with stuff like the previous bit quoted. Why not address the issue, if you do think there should be separate men's and women's events then what's your issue here?

If someone is biologically male IMO they should be in the men's event or a suitable disabled/paralympic event for their condition - does that sound reasonable? If not then why not?

Are you not able to see why having males (save for some rare exceptions) compete in the event for females is unfair?

You previously linked to this article right?

The complicated truth about testosterone’s effect on athletic performance

The debate over whether to allow female athletes with high testosterone to compete with other women has been heated, but not backed by a lot of science. That's because there simply isn't much out there, though that's not to say we can't draw some important conclusions from what we do know.

www.popsci.com

If you give a person testosterone, society considers it a performance enhancer. If you naturally have lots of the hormone, though, it’s a competitive advantage—if you’re a man. But if you’re a woman, at least according to some of the biggest sports associations in the world, it’s just plain unfair.

Female athletes like champion sprinters Caster Semenya and Dutee Chand have had to fight in recent years for their right to compete as women because their natural testosterone levels are far higher than the average woman’s.

See if you can spot the bait and switch... the problem is that in terms of biology, these people are "men" or biological males and that article concedes in the very first line that: "it’s a competitive advantage—if you’re a man" which is nothing to do with identity in that context but biology.

I think that's part of the root of your hangups here, you got confused previously with references to sex and gender and now you're getting confused re: claims about testosterone and female athletes when this concerns biological males.

This is pretty well established as an advantage for biological males:

Circulating Testosterone as the Hormonal Basis of Sex Differences in Athletic Performance

Elite athletic competitions have separate male and female events due to men’s physical advantages in strength, speed, and endurance so that a protected female category with objective entry criteria is required. Prior to puberty, there is no sex ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The strongest justification for sex classification in elite sports is that after puberty men produce 20 times more testosterone than women (4–7), resulting in circulating testosterone concentrations 15-fold higher than in children or women of any age. Age-grade competitive sporting records show no sex differences prior to puberty, whereas from the age of male puberty onward there is a strong and ongoing male advantage (8). The striking male postpubertal increase in circulating testosterone provides a major, ongoing, cumulative, and durable physical advantage in sporting contests by creating larger and stronger bones, greater muscle mass and strength, and higher circulating hemoglobin as well as possible psychological (behavioral) differences. In concert, these render women, on average, unable to compete effectively against men in power-based or endurance-based sports.

It seems your arguments boil down to a couple of things, your personal confusion over sex and gender. The presence of other factors muddling things in your mind, that limiting testosterone doesn't negate other advantages developed as a result of male puberty for example... but that those other factors exist doesn't negate that testosterone clearly has an impact on performance.

 

[dowie]

This is not "whataboutery" or "deflection". This is defining someone's sex category based entirely on testosterone levels.
Unsurprisingly, for the reasons discussed above, no-one knows the t-levels of the medal winners, as that data is (supposedly) kept confidential.

Seems completely irrelevant then despite your claims of it not being whataboutery you don't have any good argument for doing so nor am I aware of any athletes of either sex calling for such testing or indeed any lobbying for this... it's just some insane proposal put forth by you.

The issues are:
1/. The exceptions are defined by regulations based on the flawed science of very limited exploratory studies, which do not support the assertions and presumptions on which the exceptions are made.
2/. The ethical and moral issue of taking someone who has been told all her life by medical professionals that she's female, and then effectively ending her career by publicly proclaiming her to be a bloke and/or insisting on questionable modifications that risk damaging her health*.

When was she told that she was intersex? And what relevance does that have here?

I don't see how that is a good argument for anything re: regulations... someone neglected to tell someone something fundamental about themselves so we should bend the rules for them. You're (possibly) highlighting an issue with medicine in South Africa, that's all, it's not a good basis for bending rules.

"CAS accepted that the main driver of the marked sex difference in sport performance (10-12% on average) is the physical advantages conferred by having testosterone levels in the male range (7.7 - 29.4 nmol/L in blood) rather than the normal female range (06 - 1.68 nmol/L) "

IAAF publishes briefing notes and Q&A on Female Eligibility Regulations | PRESS-RELEASE | World Athletics

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decision upholding IAAF Eligibility Regulations for the Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)

worldathletics.org

Semenya's performances are gernerally asserted to be only 2% better than most of the female athletes against which she was competing. Where's her biological male advantage from all that jet-fuel testosterone coursing through her?

Again you're highlighting something that doesn't appear to be a contradiction, some general average performance advantage with some specific individual in a specific sport.

The issue is simply that she's a biological male and they have an inherent advantage that doesn't mean that ever biological male will perform (at the very highest level) exactly 10% better than the world's best women in some event.

Essentially you've got someone who would ordinarily be a good amateur club runner if competing as a male being pitted against the worlds best females... and you're querying why she's *only* 2% rather than 10% better?

 

[dowie]

No good argument for it, yes - It seems you appeared to have missed that very point, presumably deliberately in some ridiculous attempt at misrepresenting and obfuscating the discussion in a misguided attempt to strawman your disingenuous approach around addressing any of the actual points raised.

If you're going to play fallacy bingo, at least listen to the caller so you get the right one.

So you put forth an unrelated facecious point just for the sake of it or you thought you were demonstrating something... either way your response to it has become even more vague.

Who in particular?

Caster, the subject of this thread.

The top tertile female athletes in the IAAF's own study outperformed the bottom tertile by more than 3%.
Semenya outperforms most (but not all) of her fellow competitors by only 2% (although I will say I couldn't find any stats that actually gave any values higher than around 1.6%).
That's not much of an advantage.

The IAAF gave the 10-12% average as the performance advantage over and above females confered by male testosterone ranges. To date, no intersex athlete has even come close to that average.

This was already addressed, you don't seem to understand how averages work... Intersex people are a small group she's essentially a good amateur club runner, you could pick any number of good amateur club runners and show they "only" beat the world's best females by 2% then draw some false conclusion about the advantage of male athletes vs females. That would be obviously flawed though as it is when you've just done it above.

 

[dowie]

I've already stated and reiterated my points and perspectives several times. Not my problem if you're not paying attention.

No, you're just being vague as there is no argument for preventing low T men from competing in men's events other than a lame attempt at whataboutery and as you realise that you're not even addressing the point anymore.

She's a "male athlete with a male body and male testosterone and male advantages".... who just happens to not exhibit much in the way of those supposed male advantaged performance.
Moreover, she doesn't always beat everyone and her performance stats are not consistent with the CAS's criteria even for separation of athletes in the female category.

But feel free to school me on whatever intricacies of averages you think define the case here......

Aside from winning gold medals?

I did already mention your mistake re: sample sizes in the previous post but I can try to explain further.

You made some iffy claims re: performance where you claimed male performance is 10% greater on average than female and another claim that Semenya's performance was only 2% greater. I'm not sure what the 2% or 10% relate to exactly but it doesn't matter as there is an obvious flaw.

Do you understand that if you were to find the fastest 800m runner from your local pub he'd likely lose against women in the Olympics? Or if you got the best amateur runners in your area they'd not necessarily be guaranteed to win?

There are 4 billion women in the world and you're comparing to the very fastest of them... can you see the flaw yet?

5α-Reductase 2 deficiency is a very rare condition, we don't even have a good estimate on how many people have it but it's a tiny portion of all males.

Do you not understand that the very fact that male intersex people (a small subset of all males) are clearly overrepresented in, for example, the women's 800m, is a pretty obvious indicator that they do have a male advantage?

 

[dowie]

How are you not sure, when it was written quite clearly in several posts and also featured in the IAAF's and CAS's own reports that you yourself linked to??!!
If you're not even reading your own ******* links, you're just being a disingenuous ****.

It's irrelevant, you just made some assertion re: Caster and 2%, I'm already happy to assume that it's true regardless, that she's *only* 2% faster...

It doesn't matter though as the argument itself was flawed as already pointed out, do you understand that now given you're not attempting any sort of rebuttal but instead replied to a point that I was already happy to accept?

 

[dowie]

Who cares what *you're* happy to accept?
The points raised were supported by a ruling in the source you supplied. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

So why are you replying twice in a row to comment on something for which there was nothing that needed to be said instead of addressing the actual point directed to you re: the obvious flaw in the argument you made?

 

[dowie]

Yeah... your argument rests on a clear flaw, you point out that males have a general 10% performance advantage in sports and Semenya is *only* 2% faster than the very fastest women in the world. Putting aside that's comparing some general performance advantage to the results of a specific event you're also comparing the fastest person from some small subset of males to the fastest people out of 4 billion females. The flaw is already highlighted here:

Do you understand that if you were to find the fastest 800m runner from your local pub he'd likely lose against women in the Olympics? Or if you got the best amateur runners in your area they'd not necessarily be guaranteed to win?

There are 4 billion women in the world and you're comparing to the very fastest of them... can you see the flaw yet?

5α-Reductase 2 deficiency is a very rare condition, we don't even have a good estimate on how many people have it but it's a tiny portion of all males.

Do you not understand that the very fact that male intersex people (a small subset of all males) are clearly overrepresented in, for example, the women's 800m, is a pretty obvious indicator that they do have a male advantage?

So given that the basis for your argument is flawed what justification do you have for holding your position now?

 

[dowie]

I can directly quote you if you'd prefer:

Semenya outperforms most (but not all) of her fellow competitors by only 2% (although I will say I couldn't find any stats that actually gave any values higher than around 1.6%).
That's not much of an advantage.


The IAAF gave the 10-12% average as the performance advantage over and above females confered by male testosterone ranges. To date, no intersex athlete has even come close to that average.

The above comparisons are flawed for the reasons I've already highlighted... four times now you've just deflected from that rather than address it.

Do you still not get it? You're comparing a small subset of males with the very best of all females, that's what I addressed and that's what you're avoiding. Say the fastest man from [random county USA] is *only* faster than the world's best women by 2%... does that imply that men born in [random county USA] don't have a male advantage? Nope, obviously it doesn't.

 

[dowie]

Actually it implies that, if that's their best, then all the men in "Random County, USA" are at a serious disadvantage to even the most average of their competitive male athlete peers, and their performance is far closer to that of a woman.

No, it doesn't... you're just repeating the same basic error that's already been highlighted to you (comparing the best from a small sample (intersex males) with the best from all women globally). This is an issue with numeracy skills on your part.

Do you understand that if you were to sample from all males at your local pub and find the fastest 800m runner then that male would be unlikely to be anywhere near competitive vs the very best women in the whole world?

Why would you expect a county-level sample to give you a male 10% faster than the fastest women? That's what you'd expect from the very best men in the world no?

So how could you possibly expect every county in every country to have the world's best male 800m runners? You can't because you're making a big schoolboy error here!

 

[dowie]

Thats a lot of assumptions and a few presumptions just for a hypothetical argument, there...

Any male will have a "male advantage". The measure of that advantage is what makes the difference, according to the official regulations, and in severely undervirilized genetic males it does not meet (or even come close to) the specified measure to breach the separation between male and female event categories.

More deflection again I see... previously you made an objection that you hadn't said something so I quoted you directly... now you're having difficulties following a straight forward hypothetical.

We can look at a real-world example if you still don't get it:

The women's WR for 800m is 1:53.28 (though may be from doping), Semenya's record is 1:54.25

The men's WR is 1:40.91

And that fastest men's time ever is indeed around the 10-12% faster that you're looking for. That's a comparison between the very fastest-ever man (and there are 4 billion men) vs the very fastest-ever women (and there are 4 billion women).

But what happens if we look at the county level: https://www.kentac.org.uk/athletics/club-best-performances/

Well the fastest of all time for Kent was 1:49.17, that does beat the women's WR but not by 10-12%, and the fastest runner this year in Kent only gets 1:57.92, Semenya could beat him!

According to your logic this must mean that the men of the county of Kent are "are at a serious disadvantage to even the most average of their competitive male athlete peers, and their performance is far closer to that of a woman."

In reality, though you're just making a basic error that I've tried to point out to you a few times now. The population of Kent is just over 1.8 million, is it reasonable to expect that it would contain the very fastest few men out of 4 billion men in the world? Probably not... I mean they do live somewhere but they don't necessarily exist in most small subgroups of size 2 million-ish drawn from that sample of 4 billion. At one point their fastest-ever runner did beat the best women in the world, current their fastest runner doesn't, and that's quite normal variance.

Do you understand the flaw in your argument now?

Men are faster than women in general but if you're comparing a small sample of males (whether it's males from a given county or males who have some intersex condition) you can't expect that the fastest from that smaller group is going to be as fast as the fastest from among 4 billion men, that Semenya is only a little bit faster than the women isn't a good argument and the expectation that she should be 10-12% faster.. i.e. among the very fastest men in the world else there is no advantage is totally flawed.

If you still can't understand that at this point then you're completely lost on this topic and you're just left with sperging out and carrying on with your scattergun approach of throwing in whatever cherry-picked quotes you can find.

 

[dowie]

You literally asked me to explain a few posts back, you replied three times to comment on some point that wasn't in dispute, then you made some claim that I wasn't addressing what you said so I quoted you directly, then you tried to dismiss it by brushing off a hypothetical so I've made reference to real-world data instead.

The error you made was quite clear and it's been pointed out, it's not trying to brow beat you if you directly ask me for an explanation and then when one is provided you are unable to address the point made.

 

[dowie]

when all I've done is state what the regulators have already decided

No, you haven't, when did "the regulators" decide that intersex males such as Semenya have no advantage here?

You've drawn a flawed conclusion yourself by citing that 10% figure and then combining that with your observation re: Semenya... the very thing I've literally addressed above and you're still in denial of.

 

[dowie]

See previous remarks about the CAS - 10% is the advantage elite male athletes have over female ones. 2% is not enough to qualify.

That doesn't answer my question, I did see your previous remarks where you made that argument and I've highlighted the flaw in it. You've not backed up your claim that "the regulators" decided that intersex males such as Semenya have no advantage here?

Some witter about the statistics of non-elite amateur athletes and when they do or don't beat professional elite athletes (which even I have done on occasion) has no bearing on the regulations as already decided and arbitrated.

That was simply illustrating the flaw in your argument. What makes Caster "elite" here anyway vs say a fast county-level runner? If Caster weren't classified as female then she would simply be a fast county-level runner too.

You have seen why your argument is flawed now surely? That's why you're now deflecting to some vague claims about "the regulators" that you can't back up. Currently, the regulations require her to suppress her testosterone levels which isn't really in line with what you're claiming.

 

[dowie]

Also - Testosterone levels on the presumption that a high one confers a male advantage of 10-12% on average, by which the separation of male and female categories is justified, and where (according to CAS) a mere 2% (or 1.6%, depending on source) may not be so justified.

You still don't understand the flaw there if you agree with that.

I'm just going by what the regulator (and subsequently everyone else) states is the "male advantage" and comparing it to the results. It's what their regulations hinge upon, after all... and by their own standards, intersex athletes do not exhibit even half such an advantage.

But what the regulator said re: 10% isn't being disputed here. Why would you expect intersex males (yes I know they're officially classed as females in terms of their legal identity, pls don't start feigning confusion re: gender and legal identity again) to perform at that level? Essentially you'd want the subset of however many people with Caster's condition to contain a few people who are as fast as the very fastest males in the world... which isn't likely with any given, much smaller, sample of males as already highlighted. It's really basic and you don't seem to ba able to understand it.

Also: all I've done is state what the regulators have already decided" is iffy when you're actually just referring to some comment by the CAS that that advantage may not be sufficient, the regulator still requires Caster to limit her testosterone if you're going with this fingers in the ears, just arguing the status quo according to the regulator approach.

 

[dowie]

The only confusion is why you keep mentioning gender identity and legal identity, despite the many times I point out I'm deliberately ignoring that and only focussing on what actual, real, professional medical doctors have stated.

If you were ignoring it you'd not be taking issue with it all the time ergo there wouldn't be any need to respond to you doing exactly that!

And yes, I would expect to see anyone with a confirmed "male advantage" performing at least as fast as the average male in the 10-12% above females bracket.

Do you really not see that that wasn't what you were comparing... you're not looking at the average male, Semenya is way, way faster than the average male, she's faster than the fastest male amateur in the county of Kent (population circa 1.8 million).

You're citing some unnamed "smart science people" seemingly because you can't even address the obvious flaws in the argument you're using to support your position. No doubt you'll come back with some more quotes and tangential points and still fail to address it because you can't. The flaws are obvious and you can't avoid that.

 

[dowie]

Are you really going to be THAT ******* obtuse?
I'm talking about IAAF ruling on Olympic level athletes and the event separation between their sexes. Nothing to do with some bell-end in Kent.

I'm simply addressing your claims, you claimed: "I would expect to see anyone with a confirmed "male advantage" performing at least as fast as the average male in the 10-12% above females bracket."

But she does beat the average man, and your expectation that she should be beating the world's best females by 10-12% if she has any male advantage is clearly flawed for the reasons already pointed out.

The average man won't beat the top female runners in the world, let alone beat them by 10-12%. Even a very good male runner from a smaller sample of say 2 million (say a county-level runner) likely wouldn't do so... so why would you expect Semenya to? You can't address that point so you just squirm and deflect from it as you have done for a few days now.

The names are in the links already posted. Seemingly you can't read.
The flaws are your own assumptions and strawman retorts, as I have repeatedly reminded you.

The problem is you can't back up your claims so you make these vague references to things you've quoted. There is an obvious flaw in your argument you refuse to address and now you're left with just vague references to "smart science people" who you won't actually quote.

Instead of sperging out next time why not calm down a bit and try to respond to the argument? Do you understand the criticism here re: your expectation for Caster. I genuinely don't know if you're still having numeracy issues there and so not following it or if you have understood and now realise you don't have a response to it (as it's correct) so you just deflect instead?

 

[dowie]

I would expect Caster Semenya OR ANY OTHER INTERSEX OLYMPIC LEVEL ATHLETE, who is alleged to have a confirmed "male advantage", to perform somewhere close to the 10-12% above ANY FEMALE OLYMPIC LEVEL ATHLETE

Why would you expect that though? Do you really not see why that would be a flawed expectation?

That's all I'm asking you and you don't seem to have an argument for it and can't respond to the criticism of it.

I even tried to pre-empt this:

Instead of sperging out next time why not calm down a bit and try to respond to the argument?

I don't understand why you've just come back in to rant again and you're again completely deflecting