We don't segregate events by month of birth - can you not grasp why that isn't relevant here? That's something for various sports bodies to consider as they're clearly going to miss out on developing some talent.
That's a poor argument too, a common one but people forget that we're talking about the tail end of the distributions here.
We've sort of had it already though with intersex athletes, though there is a layer of obfuscation there in that the average man in the street is a bit unaware of the issue there, one poster earlier made an objection based on the assumption Semenya is female, another poster gave a rather muddled/confused reply to a brief comment about intersex people as presumably, he's just not aware of the issues.
The controversy with Semenya and a few others instead turned into a big racial thing, portrayed in some quarters as the international community trying to stop strong African women from using all of their natural abilities etc... when Lynsey Sharp spoke out after the 800m final in the 2016 Olympics she got loads of flack for it, what people didn't grasp is that the first three athletes in that race were all sus, Lindsay in 6th place would have been a bronze medal winner, the whole race would have been different.
There is a compromise for intersex in the form of testosterone suppression, still only reduced to a very high level of a woman! But testosterone isn't the only sex-based advantage as we'll see when testosterone-suppressed trans women start to compete.
We've decided to be hypersensitive in pandering to these rather small minorities of people who will clearly have an inbuilt (male) advantage in women's events, which is why women's events were segregated form men's to begin with.
edit - you can see how hypersensitive it is in places like Africa, it's reported as a targeted attack on Semenya and treated as some complaint that some African women simply look masculine, the sex thing is barely mentioned/glossed over and a racist thing:
Comments section:
Last edited:
