For me it comes down to one simple question: Why do women and men compete in separately?
Mokgadi Caster Semenya | IAAF to tell court she should be classified as biologically male
- Thread starter ivaldo
- Start date
In the case of Caster, it's her testes that are producing testosterone - it's a characteristic of the form of DSD that she has. That's part of the complication of talking about where lines are drawn in cases of this type, or indeed when we try to define who is/isn't a woman in sporting competition terms.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...enya-loses-landmark-legal-case-iaaf-athletics
The limit is being set at 5nmol/L, but the reality is that the research on how it affects performance is based on very small numbers of athletes, which is why it's particularly harsh on women like Caster. As Pogue suggested, Caster may be a victim of a broader attempt to create a standardised response to different definitions of male and female, and how the terms apply in competitive sports.
So much rage by people who haven't read any of the articles linked.
Completely the correct decision.
Unfortunate for her but it’s clear she is somewhere between a male and a female biologically and so it’s unfair for her to compete against other women without levelling the playing field.
Unfortunate for her but it’s clear she is somewhere between a male and a female biologically and so it’s unfair for her to compete against other women without levelling the playing field.
Heard the journalist David Epstein today on the Second Captains podcast pointing out that the IAAF's research found significant advantages of increased testosterone in several events (400m, 800m, 1500m, Hammer Throw, Pole Vault, etc.), yet they only decided to regulate ones Semenya was involved in, which rather makes it seem obviously targeted at her. Which in itself could have been grounds for overturning the decision.
Just create a seperate completion for gender fluid athletes or those who are intra sex biologically
I’ve just been listening to that too. But maybe they just don’t have any test cases in those other disciplines?
On a side note, Ken Early’s glib insistence that doctors will always fail footballers who have a head injury assessment was making me want to shout at my iphone (or write a snarky tweet in his direction anyway) What about all the times rugby players pass those tests, every fecking weekend?! Anyhoo. Wrong thread.
Well indeed. There had to be some way of deciding who gets to compete in which category and (in a time when ideas on gender and sex are increasingly fluid) any standard by which we regulate that is going to be an arbitrary one, meaning someone will be hard done by. So in one sense you could say Semenya is unfortunately a hard case in a situation that will always produce hard cases.
However, the more I read about this ruling the more thorny it appears. For a start CAS themselves admit that the IAAF's policy is discriminatory, difficult to implement and that there is no concrete evidence regarding the advantage provided by testosterone in certain events. They also expressed concerns about the potential side effects of hormonal treatment for hyperandrogenic women who decide to artificially lower their testosterone levels in order to compete, something there is hard evidence for.
Beyond that, there's the issue I mentioned above of the IAAF appearing to target this regulation at a particular athlete despite the apparent logic of their argument suggesting that other events should at least be regulated in the same way. The logic of their argument being fundamental given that the evidence they presented was (as per CAS themselves as well as the people who gave evidence in Semenya's favour) less than concrete. According to David Epstein other intra sex atheletes have also been treated poorly by the IAAF in a less public way, which raises questions over their suitability to regulate this issue even if we accept that regulation is needed.
Thirdly, there is the related problem of CAS describing this policy as "a living document". This suggests that the IAAF will be able to add or remove events as they like, with no apparent recourse for the athlete. Which is an issue when there are already doubts over the IAAF's ability to fairly regulate the issue. So say Semenya (who it apoears has already had regulation directed specifically towards her by the IAAF) moves to another event, the IAAF could then just add that event to the regulated list too? That kind of targeting hardly seems fair, yet this ruling leaves it a firm possibility.
Taking all that into consideration, this is certainly a far from black & white issue. Especially given that (as per CAS) the decision is based on weighing the proportionality of these regulations. Even on a brief glance it's complicated, nuanced stuff.
Science aside, it's just a bit of a heartbreaking case. I can see the point of people who argue that she has an unfair advantage and I"m sure they can back that up with science, but still, it's tough to swallow the fact that, even though you didn't chose to be born the way you were, you are now excluded to compete in professional sports.
I don't think there's a malicious reason behind banning her (even though I'm sure there's lots of people applauding it in malicious ways), it's just a very difficult case. Ruling to have someone taking testosterone blockers though. Sounds a bit like, I'm sorry, but you're a weirdo so you have to take these pills to fit in. Not the intend, but still feels a bit like it.
I don't think there's a malicious reason behind banning her (even though I'm sure there's lots of people applauding it in malicious ways), it's just a very difficult case. Ruling to have someone taking testosterone blockers though. Sounds a bit like, I'm sorry, but you're a weirdo so you have to take these pills to fit in. Not the intend, but still feels a bit like it.
I have sympathy for her, it's her natural biological make-up and she hasn't done anything underhand. If I were her, I wouldn't want to have to take anything which would block the way my body functions. I do feel sorry for the other top female athletes of her generation, who have to compete against her. But then, there have always been intersex people, and occasionally one will end up as a professional athlete.
I think Caster's case is entirely different from that of trans male-to-female athletes who compete in all-female competitions, who have already been taking hormones and/or blocking naturally-produced hormones in their bodies.
I think Caster's case is entirely different from that of trans male-to-female athletes who compete in all-female competitions, who have already been taking hormones and/or blocking naturally-produced hormones in their bodies.
I believe one of the big worries is that now agents are actively targeting kids in africa and the concern is is about the impact of that over time... though as you say from her POV it must seem quite unfair
Personally Id just start letting drug companies and robotics companies sponsor athletes and take all the rules away so we can watch drugged up cyborgs battle it out - it would solve all the problems about fairness and drug cheating plus it could be fun to watch.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
On one hand, intersex athletes like Semenya should not be competing with biological female athletes; on the other, the IAAF should not be telling intersex athletes to take hormone suppressants in order to compete. They are basically being cowards and forcing intersex athletes into a catch-22: take these drugs with who knows what side-effects or never get to compete. They should really take the onus and create intersex divisions but they are scared of publicity and politics so they take the most harmful path for the athletes.
.
It seems to back the feeling that this was indeed targeted at Semenya (and a few other DSD athletes) and the vague disquiet that there were too many intersex athletes on the podium at certain events. As the writer says though, there's nothing clear cut or definitive about this decision. It will be challenged again, and the CAS commentary about "not harmful to health" is likely to be the basis for that challenge.
As convenient as the testosterone figure is and as scientifically clear cut as it sounds, it's clearly not the whole truth. It's also hard to get past the idea that at least some of that desire for "one measurable chemical" is to avoid legal action by transgender athletes.
Incidentally while this is a test case for the IAAF, realistically it's a test case/model for the rest of women's sport as well.
It's nice to see an article going back to the principles as well as examining the IAAF study that led to the current ruling. I'd read a couple of articles citing the fact that the study came up with a different list of events to the one the IAAF used - it's interesting to see just how weak the study was in terms of design as well as numbers of athletes.
It seems to back the feeling that this was indeed targeted at Semenya (and a few other DSD athletes) and the vague disquiet that there were too many intersex athletes on the podium at certain events. As the writer says though, there's nothing clear cut or definitive about this decision. It will be challenged again, and the CAS commentary about "not harmful to health" is likely to be the basis for that challenge.
As convenient as the testosterone figure is and as scientifically clear cut as it sounds, it's clearly not the whole truth. It's also hard to get past the idea that at least some of that desire for "one measurable chemical" is to avoid legal action by transgender athletes.
Incidentally while this is a test case for the IAAF, realistically it's a test case/model for the rest of women's sport as well.
Creating intersex divisions is a non-starter. There won't be enough athletes to compete.
The only truly logical decision is to say that any intersex athlete should not be allowed to compete in sports which are divided into male and female categories. I think the same should be true for transgender athletes.
It seems very unfair/unkind but once we accept that biological men and biological women should not be allowed to compete against each other because men have a huge advantage (which all the available evidence supports) then anyone who isn't 100% biologically male or female shouldn't be allowed compete in either category. Forcing people to take drugs in order to be allowed compete with people that have a fundamentally different biology to them just seems insane.
Although maybe you could argue that they're not being forced to take anything? They could always choose not to compete.
Whether there should be separate male and female categories in sports is a different discussion. Removing them would solve this problem immediately.
I don't agree that there wouldn't be enough athletes, at first sure, but over time I think there would be plenty. It could be an intersex/transgender division.
Removing the male/female categories would basically end all female participation in top level sport, if people are comfortable with that, then fine.
This, the genders aren't split for no reason it's down to physical capabilities so it's only logical that she shouldn't be allowed to compete with the women if she has one over her competitors.
Usually with this type of thing you'd drop the gender labels and categorise in terms of capability to prevent discrimination. You can then include also include transgender athletes as they'd fit into a category rather than it being about which sex they see themselves as.
Well sex isn't entirely binary so applying it to sport is going to cause issues. Maybe instead of man / woman it should be more of weight division type deal? You need to stay under a bunch of lines to compete in the womens events (with a name change to reflect that)
I think the way the world is going right now you would eventually end up with sufficient numbers in intersex events.
Something as basic as running (across the various sub disciplines) will surely have plenty of intersex interest.
One thing is for sure, female sport needs to be protected and I can see why they have taken such a hardline stance.
Reading about all of this took me down a rabbit-hole on reddit, and I learned about the people who believe that gender is defined by how you feel (i.e., your brain) rather than anything to do with your body, reproductive function, genitalia or any other sex characteristic. They may stay completely male body-wise, but identify as female. They also reserve the right to identify as women one day, and as men on another day. Some of them identify as lesbian women who just happen to have functioning male genitalia.
Slightly off-topic, but I also learned that they are scathing of lesbians who do not want intimate relationships with women who have a penis. I also learned that a penis is not a male thing and a uterus is not a woman thing, because that is evidently a bigoted thing to say. I also found out that women who have complained about trans women with fully-functioning male genitalia walking around naked in all-female changing rooms have been called transphobic and have been censured.
I know there have been a few trans f-t-m people who have stopped their hormone therapy to get pregnant and have later returned to taking hormones and living as a man - I can understand that, they still have female reproductive organs. But I can't see how a man who decides that he is actually a woman will ever be able to experience being pregnant and giving birth. And yet we aren't allowed to say that he can't do this?
edit - people of my generation often struggle with all of this. I can understand and sympathise with trans people who desperately want their body to match the way they feel - hence they seek surgery. That seems logical to me - you feel you are really a man or a woman, so you make medical and surgical changes to your body to reflect that. But I can't get my head around people who say they're women but are apparently happy in their male bodies.
Slightly off-topic, but I also learned that they are scathing of lesbians who do not want intimate relationships with women who have a penis. I also learned that a penis is not a male thing and a uterus is not a woman thing, because that is evidently a bigoted thing to say. I also found out that women who have complained about trans women with fully-functioning male genitalia walking around naked in all-female changing rooms have been called transphobic and have been censured.
I know there have been a few trans f-t-m people who have stopped their hormone therapy to get pregnant and have later returned to taking hormones and living as a man - I can understand that, they still have female reproductive organs. But I can't see how a man who decides that he is actually a woman will ever be able to experience being pregnant and giving birth. And yet we aren't allowed to say that he can't do this?
edit - people of my generation often struggle with all of this. I can understand and sympathise with trans people who desperately want their body to match the way they feel - hence they seek surgery. That seems logical to me - you feel you are really a man or a woman, so you make medical and surgical changes to your body to reflect that. But I can't get my head around people who say they're women but are apparently happy in their male bodies.
Last edited:
I'd say you've found one the more extreme interpretations on the issue. You can say he isn't allowed to do this, if you did it on that particular reddit i'd expect censure. But you've just said it here and i doubt you'll get much if any criticism for it.
I'd say theres a bit of give and take on the issue, if your changing your sex on a daily basis and demanding to be referred to as an obscure gender that no one knows on tuesday your probably not going to be taken very seriously and people will routinely misgender you, often not due to malice. If you've had gender reassignment therapy, talk like a woman, live as a woman then its much more reasonable to ask people to refer to you as a woman. At first glance its probably what most people will recognise you as
Well, that's what I mean - why would folk be scathing towards lesbians who choose not to have sex with people with male genitals, even if those people identify as women? Why would a trans person not want to have a body which matches what they feel inside? If I say tomorrow that I'm a man can I join one of those all-male sports clubs, even though I have a woman's body?
I need some help in understanding all this. It all seemed pretty clear to me before - there are straight people (now called cis), there are gay people, there are bi people, there are intersex people, there are trans people. When i was a younger adult, we didn't know much about trans people. Now we have TV shows about trans people ("I am Jazz", for instance), the topic is mainstream, if you like.
But there's new nuances every day, it seems.
edit - when I was working, I used to approve special funding for trans people who were seeking surgery on the NHS. They invariably had very long and anguished histories, and all they wanted was for their body to match what they felt inside. That's what I understand and recall when I read about trans people.
By the way, when I wrote above about trans women and giving birth, I mean that they can't physically give birth because they don't have the biological ability to get pregnant, not that they shouldn't be allowed to do it if science ever makes it possible.
Last edited:
Isn't it - born a man, into women: cis hetero / born a woman, turned man, into women: trans hetero? So like there should be four permutations of cis/trans + homo/hetero. Just a side note here. ^^
I'm not affected by any of this personally (at least during my life so far
), but I quite liked the Amazon series "Transparent" about that topic.People are scathing towards everything and everyone on the internet. I can't imagine that position being even vaguely common. I think the fashionable position is basically i'll have sex with anyone im attracted to and that could be anyone and people think having a preference is borderline sexist. Everyone having a preference is irrelevant its saying you have a preference thats not pc.
And again i think your looking at the most outrageous, extreme position on this. I dont think its a position your ever likely to run into outside of reddit
It's striking that Tucker (who gave evidence in Semenya's favour to CAS) is so nuanced in his argument. This isn't an issue with black & white answers, though sports authorities will probably have to implement some sort of black & white regulations regardless. Glad it ain't my job to figure it out.
Though it does occur to me that a sport like this can afford to operate with more uncertainty and experimentation in terms of its approach than a sport like MMA say, where questions around unfair physical advantages would carry much heavier potential consequences. It's hard to imagine that issues around intra sex and transgender competitors won't arise in pretty much every sport in coming decades so hopefully best practice in terms of how to deal with it becomes clearer, even if that's just in terms of how well organisations deal with the athletes they are forced to exclude. It certainly seems like the IAAF's approach in dealing with the athletes impacted by the issue was deeply flawed, even if their argument is correct in theory.
They are in an unenviable situation, certainly. There is no right or wrong answer, and, thankfully, I don't think anyone from CAS or the IAAF has been unsympathetic to Semenya's stance on this. Whatever verdict CAS gave on this it was always going to seem unfair to someone. Ultimately, the IAAF has to make a call on what is in the best interests of the sport, which isn't fair on Semenya, but I feel is the right decision.
I think that is a very simplistic way of dealing with a very complex and nuanced issue.
The excellent article you posted argues quite strongly that the potential advantages of various cases vary from 0 to approx 12% and the evidence to consider an appropriate response is extremely lacking at the moment.
Last edited:
Feelings aren't evidence though. Fairness demands that we deal with actual advantage, and thus disadvantage to other athletes, and not potential advantage.
I don't know what condition Caster has but if it is complete androgen insensitivity she would be genetically male, phenotypically female, have testes where her ovaries would be and have a physical inability to use the high levels of testosterone produced.
Which would suggest she may not be gaining an advantage and why her times are 12% lower than top ranked males.
I'm obviously not an expert so before we impose blanket rules I think we need decent evidence of the actual facts for all possible conditions, that are presented by actual scientific medical experts so that an informed decision can be made.
Last edited:
That's not a good way to compare. The average male doing the same sport would easily have times wildly behind the top ranked males, which doesn't mean if you put him in a race of females he wouldn't dominate or at least be highly competitive. Which is what is happening with Semenya, she is not at the same level as top ranked males but the small increase in testosterone gives her much bigger advantage over the rest of the field.
I compete in powerlifting and I am, at best, below average and the top male lifters are putting up numbers which are close to 30-40% more than I can, but if you put me in a female category, I'd be going to world championships and finishing in the top 5.
The actual evidence required is if she has an advantage over other women but that evidence is currently lacking.
That said the figures for running, that seem to be widely agreed upon, is that raised testosterone can give between 0 and 12% increase in performance. As she is 12% behind men and doesn't even have the female world record in all her events It at least suggests that the assumption of advantage being made is extrapolating well beyond the actual data.
Proof that testosterone can improve performance isn't proof that it does in Carster's case as she may be partially or totally insensitive to androgens. So what, if any, advantage she gets isn't known at the moment.
There are extremists on all sides for every issue. I have seen people on youtube and other social media claim that lesbians should not be penis-phobic and discriminate against trans woman with male genitals. To me that is completely bat shit crazy and if that makes me less progressive or transphobic then so be it. I do believe (or definitely hope) that this is a very minority position within trans community. I see why it exists as well since one is supposed to be considered as their identified gender irrespective of the status of their male/female genitalia.
WR are by definition, statistical outliers, so again they are not all that useful when deciding if someone has an advantage or not (and most of them happened during times when intersex testing wasn't very common and steroids were rampant). Comparing her to the rest of the field she competes against, she's the only one who consistenly breaks 1.54 and the closest second is usually a second behind or so.
The second thing is that saying 'testosterone improves performance' is too broad a statement. Testosterone makes you have higher bone density, have a bigger frame, build more muscle more easily than a female would do and have a much more efficient cardiovascular system. Is Castor Semenya exhibiting more than one of these characteristics? Even a partially androgen insenstive man will still show these traits to a higher degree than 99% of women, and given that we know Semenya is intersex (with XY chromosones and internal testes), how much more evidence is needed?
Like I said above, if I competed against women, I might not set WRs but I would be competitive on the world stage. Would that mean that I don't have advantage because I didn't set a WR or was behind the top men?
If she is totally androgen insensitive she can't gain an advantage from high testosterone. Which is one reason that looking purely at testosterone levels is hugely flawed.
I'm merely arguing that she is being banned or forced to medicate based on an assumed advantage and not one that is currently proven with actual evidence.
I see the arguments on both sides. However for me this is bigger than athletics. I'm uncomfortable with forcing a woman to take a drug that blocks a hormone she produces naturally.
People dominate sport cause of a natural advantage all the time.
People dominate sport cause of a natural advantage all the time.
I agree. There's something quite hypocritical in drug testing athletes for things they put in their bodies to enhance their performances and making another take something to suppress hers which in the end will have an enhancement on others in a way. Two wrongs don't make a right and I know it doesn't quite work that way but we and the IAAF are in danger of saying that what Caster is, is not normal, or natural.
Other athletes may feel her performances are not fair but we learn at an early age that life isn't always fair. The answer isn't to be unfair to one athlete to attempt to make a 'Fairness' for others. I feel dreadfully sorry for Caster Semenya and at the same time for other athletes but nature never makes things easy for us, it doesn't sit, roll over and beg on demand.
The way androgen insentivity has been explained to me would suggest that Semenya is definitely partially insensitive, otherwise her testes would have dropped and she would for all intents and purposes be a man? Is that right?
So she has some of the benefits of testosterone but not fully. I agree that it's for someone to be forced to medicate, but she (and other intersex athletes) should not be competing with female athletes.
If I've understood it well enough:
She's a woman, competing in a sport with other women, but is being told that because her vagina does the job "too well" on producing testosterone she can't compete with women?
Meh. Freaks of nature are all around different sports, I don't see that as a reason to ban or change her "competing sex" based on.
She's a woman, competing in a sport with other women, but is being told that because her vagina does the job "too well" on producing testosterone she can't compete with women?
Meh. Freaks of nature are all around different sports, I don't see that as a reason to ban or change her "competing sex" based on.
Besides the point. As a community we've decided that the female division is a protected category because if the sex distinction didn't exist, there would be no female participation in top level sport.