Caster Semenya should not be subject to testes

[Adam Ferguson]

I don't really follow sport, but would be interested if anyone who does knows how his/her times compare with men.

 

[Ove]

Is it? Does too much testosterone or whatever stop her being a woman, despite having a vagina and a womb? If men have physiological advantages over women, it's reasonable to assume all top female athletes must have traits bringing them closer to what we call a man than most women. Again, where do you draw the line?

Yes it does stop her from being a woman. She has testicles, not ovaries and they produce testosterone which make her muscles comparable to a man. If you follow your own argument then men and women should compete against each other in all sports.

 

[timhau]

I don't really follow sport, but would be interested if anyone who does knows how his/her times compare with men.

If she was a man running those times, not only would we never have heard of her, she would have zero chance of competing professionally. According to her IAAF profile, her personal bests are 1:55.45 in the 800m and 4:08.01 on the 1500. She's only 19, so it may not be fair to compare those to men's records; youth WRs on the male side are 1:44.34 for the 800m and 3:33.72 in the 1500 (both run by guys who hadn't yet turned 17).

 

[Rolfe]

If she wants to have surgery to make her officially female, she still might turn out to be a very good female though.

Rolfe.

 

[Vox Humana]

Ah proving yourself by blind assertion.

Why is men compeating against men and women compeating against women fair but ignoreing many other things that create significant benefits fine? Why was it fair to have someone as gifted physologicaly as Phelps compete againt those less physiologicaly gifted?

Actually, I don't think that's entirely correct. There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents women from competing in men's events; the women-only competitions are a special case. So there are competitions exclusive to women, and there are 'open' competitions that are contested (almost) exclusively by men. I'm not aware of any sex tests to verify that a competitor is actually a man...

If we follow your line of reasoning there should be no women's sports at all, as excluding men would be arbitrary and unfair. This would effectively remove women from almost all top competitions. This might be the most egalitarian solution, but it's probably not the best one.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It seems to me that this is not a matter of science but of law. Sports governing bodies have ruled that male and female athletes should compete in different competitions (other than in equestrianism), but we have here a test case where the definition of male and female is in question. Therefore, it's incumbent on the relevant governing body to state a full definition of the difference between male and female as it pertains to participation in their sporting events. If there is an existing definition that is specific enough to exclude Caster Semenya, then Caster Semenya is by definition excluded from women's events. The question of individual ability is then irrelevant; it is a matter simply of whether the individual's biochemistry conforms to the appropriate specification.

And, Ian Osbourne, it seems to me that it doesn't matter so much where the line is drawn, as it does that it is drawn specifically and clearly, and means are available to athletes to determine on which side of the line they fall.

Dave

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes it does stop her from being a woman. She has testicles, not ovaries and they produce testosterone which make her muscles comparable to a man. If you follow your own argument then men and women should compete against each other in all sports.

It would certainly be the least discriminatory method. Either that or we need a great many more classes so that people can compete against people the most physologicaly similar to them. Why shouldn't all sports have things akin to weight classes?

It is also true male and female are very hard to define.

 

[fuelair]

They were on drugs, something no one suggests is a factor here.

And he hits it out of the park!!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, I don't think that's entirely correct. There's nothing that I'm aware of that prevents women from competing in men's events; the women-only competitions are a special case. So there are competitions exclusive to women, and there are 'open' competitions that are contested (almost) exclusively by men. I'm not aware of any sex tests to verify that a competitor is actually a man...

If we follow your line of reasoning there should be no women's sports at all, as excluding men would be arbitrary and unfair. This would effectively remove women from almost all top competitions. This might be the most egalitarian solution, but it's probably not the best one.

That is one solution, the other is to have many many more classes, rather like you do in say powerlifting where they have weight classes. Why isn't that dumb? Just because people are shorter and as such at a physological disadvantage in track and field we don't put them into their own class.

 

[tyr_13]

That is one solution, the other is to have many many more classes, rather like you do in say powerlifting where they have weight classes. Why isn't that dumb? Just because people are shorter and as such at a physological disadvantage in track and field we don't put them into their own class.

In many sports there already are the types of classes you advocate. There is local, minor, and major league baseball. Breaking down by how well you compete at a sport is what most sports are about.

 

[WildCat]

Next up, someone will argue that non-disabled people be allowed to compete in the Special Olympics.

Hey, why not let paralyzed people compete in the wheelchair races? Since it's unfair that they can't use their arms they will be allowed to use wheelchairs powered by an internal combustion engine.

Etc etc.

 

[Vox Humana]

That is one solution, the other is to have many many more classes, rather like you do in say powerlifting where they have weight classes. Why isn't that dumb? Just because people are shorter and as such at a physological disadvantage in track and field we don't put them into their own class.

What's your point?

Nobody's arguing that the separation of athletes into gender-specific competitions isn't arbitrary. It's an arrangement most people are comfortable with. Same thing with weight classes in powerlifting - categorization by weight is a mechanism that encourages people of non-optimal body composition to still compete, and makes the sport more inclusive and interesting.

You want to lobby for separate classification by height? Have at it! But what's that got to do with not letting a male compete in female only competitions?

 

[ponderingturtle]

In many sports there already are the types of classes you advocate. There is local, minor, and major league baseball. Breaking down by how well you compete at a sport is what most sports are about.

That is not at all the same. There are not multiple major league baseball teams. Boxing is the only major sport that has weight classes instead of what you are argueing for which is amature sports. There is a difference between amature and pro sports.

Is she more advantaged over her competators by her unusual physology than Phelps is? If not why does the nature of her advantage matter so much?

 

[ponderingturtle]

What's your point?

Nobody's arguing that the separation of athletes into gender-specific competitions isn't arbitrary. It's an arrangement most people are comfortable with. Same thing with weight classes in powerlifting - categorization by weight is a mechanism that encourages people of non-optimal body composition to still compete, and makes the sport more inclusive and interesting.

And what abotu when you get

You want to lobby for separate classification by height? Have at it! But what's that got to do with not letting a male compete in female only competitions?

She is not a male. At least be correct, she is either a woman or a freak but certainly not a man.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Is she more advantaged over her competators by her unusual physology than Phelps is? If not why does the nature of her advantage matter so much?

Because the regulations limit competition in certain events to biological females according to a specific definition. If she doesn't conform to that definition, she is excluded from those events. It's not a matter of morals, but of regulation.

Dave

 

[Vox Humana]

She is not a male. At least be correct, she is either a woman or a freak but certainly not a man.

Well, she reportedly has no womb, no ovaries, and does have testicles. That certainly seems to fit the definition of male much better than female, no?

By what criteria can you say that she is definitively female?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Because the regulations limit competition in certain events to biological females according to a specific definition. If she doesn't conform to that definition, she is excluded from those events. It's not a matter of morals, but of regulation.

Dave

Please post their definition, or at least link to it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, she reportedly has no womb, no ovaries, and does have testicles. That certainly seems to fit the definition of male much better than female, no?

By what criteria can you say that she is definitively female?

Self identification, social classification.

 

[Vox Humana]

Self identification, social classification.

Look, I don't care if people treat her like she's a woman in day to day life - I would too. And I have no problem referring to her as 'her', she obviously thinks of herself as a woman and that's fine.

But it can't work that way in sports, where there's an arbitrary separation based on gender due exclusively to the relative speed and strength advantages that men have over women. On this level it's got nothing to do with what the competitor thinks she is, or what anyone else thinks she looks like, it's got to do with the plumbing. And based on this criteria Semenya better fits the definition of a male.

My heart goes out to this young person for having these incredibly personal details trotted out in front of the world through no fault of her own. I can't imagine how difficult this is for her to deal with, and I hope it doesn't destroy her.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

To ponderingturtle's point, gender classification is complex and the definition of what makes a woman a woman is many faceted. It is a make up of biological, chemical, physiological, and psychological characteristics that help to define what sex we identify with.

That being said, I assume (by previous posts) that the IOC has a definition for their classification for women and I question whether Ms. Semenya, if she indeed has no uterus or ovaries, falls into that classification. But then what would you do with a woman who has had a hysterectomy? I don't think it is an easy question.