Caster Semenya should not be subject to testes

[lionking]

Searching Babe Didrikson Zaharias led me to this page from feministblogs.org.

"First of all, we could stop sex segregating sports. Little boys and girls play together when they are younger, but by the time they reach junior high school they are locked into rigidly segregated sports worlds. Many would argue that women are biologically unable to compete with men, but that’s a load of bull. When women are encouraged to compete and socialized into the rigors of training to be competitive athletes, they can compete at the same level as men. Basketball is basketball, and track is track"

Is this a common belief amongst feminists or just the extreme fringes?

Utter bilge. Our Australian women's basketball team is one or two in the world, yet cannot beat a state junior men's team.

 

[Fnord]

I once made a suggestion to some Naval officers (3 men, 2 women) that to settle the argument, the Navy would randomly select any two destroyers, crew one solely with men, and the other solely with women. Then send them both on deployment to the western Pacific (a "WESTPAC" tour), with the strict stipulation that no man would be allowed on the woman's ship, and no woman would be allowed on the man's ship for the entire tour (emergency exceptions, of course). At the end of the tour, an inspection of both ships by the admiralty would take place. Whichever ship surpassed the other in operational readiness at the end of the tour would have its entire crew on 30-day leave that would not be counted against their normal leave accrual. The other ship's crew would find their leaves canceled for the next 30 days.

All 5 officers laughed, called it an absurd idea, and dismissed me. My captain later "counseled" me that such "suggestions" would be better handled through "proper" channels. I took the hint.

It's been 15 years since, and my idea has not been implemented. Could the United States Navy know something about the alleged disparity in male-to-female performance? Could it be that they'd rather not risk embarrassment - not to mention a valuable destroyer - in what amounts to a fool's wager against a foregone outcome?

 

[lionking]

And this has what to do with athletic performance?

 

[Ove]

Utter bilge. Our Australian women's basketball team is one or two in the world, yet cannot beat a state junior men's team.

On the other hand it does remind me off the fool that challenged Billie Jean King to "prove male dominance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Sexes_(Tennis)....

 

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree. She has testes and no ovaries. She is neither male nor female. She certainly shouldn't be competing against women.

Give me the definition of male and female that you use to arrive at that decision.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't have a link, and I don't know the specific definition, although I've seen references to it eslewhere. I'm inferring that there must be a definition, from the fact that there is a test; any test must have a pass/fail criterion, and that criterion is in effect the definition. If there isn't such a pass/fail criterion, and the test is partly subjective, then the governing body seriously needs to address that.

Dave

Ah so you have no idea what the definition is or if one even exists, asside from what ever people want to apply at any given time.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ah so you have no idea what the definition is or if one even exists, asside from what ever people want to apply at any given time.

Correct. But the inference to be drawn, from the fact that there is a test, is that there is a definition. If there isn't, then there needs to be for the rules to be objective.

I have to say that, if she does indeed have testes and no ovaries, then at best she cannot be claimed to be unarguably female, and the difference between her and someone who is unarguable female is closely related to the cause of the differences in sporting performance between males and females that are the basis for the separation. At the very least, therefore, there is a strong case to be made for her exclusion from female-only competition, whether or not that case is held to be correct.

Dave

 

[gtc]

Its very simple.

Females are at a biological disadvantage in athletics and in many other sports.

An open competition would be dominated by men but women still want to compete.

So women only events exist.

And anyone who isn't sufficiently female enough to share those disadvantages has to be excluded.

The same thing happens with age divisions and weight classes.

The only problem is that biological sex/gender is not always as clear cut as age or weight.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Correct. But the inference to be drawn, from the fact that there is a test, is that there is a definition. If there isn't, then there needs to be for the rules to be objective.

I wonder if men with unnaturaly high biological levels of testosterone should also be banned from sports. It would be only fair.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its very simple.

Females are at a biological disadvantage in athletics and in many other sports.

An open competition would be dominated by men but women still want to compete.

Lots of people want to compete, but with few exceptions it is only the top freaks for men and women that can.

 

[WildCat]

On the other hand it does remind me off the fool that challenged Billie Jean King to "prove male dominance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Sexes_(Tennis)....

You realize that was a publicity stunt, don't you?

 

[WildCat]

Lots of people want to compete, but with few exceptions it is only the top freaks for men and women that can.

Your "solution" would limit it to only the top freaks of men.

 

[WildCat]

Give me the definition of male and female that you use to arrive at that decision.

Male: Born with XY chromosomes. No ovaries, no womb, no vagina.

Female: No testes, no penis, XX chromosomes.

If you want to create a special category for the rest fine with me. But it's asinine to allow a man to compete in women's events just for wearing a dress.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I wonder if men with unnaturaly high biological levels of testosterone should also be banned from sports. It would be only fair.

I wonder if any discussion on how to clarify a rule has ever been assisted by fatuous suggestions for adding additional rules.

Dave

 

[Delscottio]

Your "solution" would limit it to only the top freaks of men.

Does anyone pay attention to womens athletics anyway?

 

[WildCat]

Does anyone pay attention to womens athletics anyway?

The ones where they're half naked, like beach volleyball...

 

[Delscottio]

The ones where they're half naked, like beach voleyball...

Good point, I retract my statement. Some of the high jumpers hold a bit of interest as well..

 

[ponderingturtle]

Male: Born with XY chromosomes. No ovaries, no womb, no vagina.

So if you have a penis, testicles and no breasts but are not XY you are not a man then.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wonder if any discussion on how to clarify a rule has ever been assisted by fatuous suggestions for adding additional rules.

Dave

The goal here is to level the playing feild between competetors of different hormone levels, why limit it to women?

 

[Dave Rogers]

The goal here is to level the playing feild between competetors of different hormone levels,

No, it isn't. That would imply a handicapping system.

The system is what it is, and the debate is where within that system Caster Semenya should be classified. Trying to propose additional classifications is, as I'm sure you're well aware, a different debate.

Dave