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

[dowie]

The point I've been addressing concerns athletes with genetic differences in general, and more specifically about where the lines should be drawn.
Your witter about "male with a DSD condition" is one case and, as with all the others, without sufficient scientific data to confidently draw any lines at this stage.

This is just not true, males have a clear advantage in athletics, you're trying to deliberately muddy the waters by referring to female intersex conditions but those have nothing to do with the controversy or what is being discussed here.

Because of that you completely missed or didn't understand the point being made re: the boxer being masculine.

Don't just take my word for it, here's a developmental biologist, it's pretty apparent this individual doesn't have Swyer, that's the point re: looking masculine.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1821844711859994895

You want to avoid that and go down some tangent re: the Paralympics but the point there is simply re: representation, if people feel strongly that intersex males with male advantages should still be able to compete then give them their own event and if you're unsure or if you believe there is some disadvantage for them vs regular males i.e. a disability then we have those games for that purpose.

And on that topic now we've got another controversy for the Paralympics

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823416259196936591

 

[dowie]

I disagree that any of those would be considered biologically male - the lack of gene expression that results in testes makes them female.
I agree that XY is not enough to say 'male' - if the male genes are not actively expressed it results in a biological female, albeit one with a syndrome of some type.

That's been pointed out to him several times now but he just pops back up with the same stale flawed argument to try and muddy the waters where it's not relevant - those aren't intersex people with male advantages ergo they're not relevant here as they don't have the code on the Y chromosome that causes male development.

It seems to be a common tactic to try and obfuscate this issue, similar thing happened as a side effect of the Semenya reporting but more unintentionally and related to publications trying to be sensitive with it.

When things are framed as "woman with naturally higher testosterone" (woman being used as a polite term re: social gender) then people get confused and think "that's a bit unfair, doesn't Michael Phelps have a natural advantage too" etc. When in reality it's a male person who had some genetic issue that impacted the development of "her" penis which didn't fully form/balls didn't drop and so was raised as if "she" was a girl. But it would be crass for papers to go into that detail so it's left with the polite description that causes confusion.

 

[dowie]

I'd call them a cheating little ****, but they don't have one.

Or they do but it's very little. (Depending on whether you meant male part or female part there.)

 

[dowie]

The bone structure doesn't immediately appear masculine to me.

You're talking about a prepubescent child FFS!

Look at her bone structure now, compared to then.

Wonder what could have caused that!

 

[dowie]

Which is what?
Which is caused by exactly what?
Which is scientifically* proven where?
Which is proven in which individuals in which events?

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?

This is your tangent, mate.
You're the one who brought that one up... I never even mentioned it until you put your oar in, and so far you've just rowed yourself round in circles with it.

It was a pretty clear point - if you think there is a difference in ability/potential between male intersex with some male advantage and regular males then those differently abled people would be better catered for in the Paralympics with events dedicated to them

If, alternatively, you don't think there is a difference in ability/potential between intersex males and regular males then problem solved, they just go in the male category at the regular Olympics.

 

[dowie]

Running - 100m for eg. one division for <10secs, one for >10secs.

That makes very little sense, essentially awarding a medal for coming in X000th place or something because you decided that some cut-off of slow runners defined only by their slowness should arbitrarily get a medal.

Some sports have a handicap to keep things interesting, you're no longer competing to see who the best is then.

Beyond that it's mostly just based in fact - are you male or female, are you the correct age for the age range, are you within the weight limits where weight limits apply etc..

If you wanted to segregate sprinters by height or length of their legs that might be different.

In an ideal world, anyone should be able to compete in a fairly competitive setting, but how to achieve it? Is there a way of dividing up a population into classes that promote competition without there being "unfair" edge cases?

Yes, remove the unfair edge cases. They could have separate Paralympics events for DSD people and for trans people.

For example a "trans woman" has been though male puberty so has an advantage over women but if she's also suppressing her testosterone then she's at a disadvantage vs regular men ergo her medical condition is impacting her performance and we have a set of games for people whose disability/medical condition impacts their performance.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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).

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.