[Closed] Linsey Sharp - sour grapes or not? ( Olympics & hyperandrogenism content )

Most of the world's greatest athletes have quirks of physiology which give them the potential to be extraordinary. Most of the rest of us come to terms with the fact that, no matter how hard we train, our genetic inheritance means we do not have that potential, or even the potential to be in the same race.

It may seem unfair, but it's the same natural variation at play, albeit a pretty big one here. The alternatives - reverse doping to reduce androgen levels, or banning Caster altogether, are far worse.

The other athletes do need to remember that their dignity is probably worth more than finishing 5th instead of 6th.

There was a good podcast from Off The Ball on Newstalk in Ireland a couple of weeks ago. One person was advocating that Semenya should be taking a testosterone controlling drug to bring her testosterone level into a certain band. One of the argument was that if the same was applied to men's sport where some men have a natural high level of testosterone.
Someone mentioned that athletes will try and have kids 2 years out from a major championship as there is a natural boost to hormone levels which can aid their performance??

Before anyone comments I'd strongly recommend they read all of this...

http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/

Think it's just about the most thorny and complex issue the IAAF have to deal with, which is probably why they aren't. Semenya is probably the most obvious example of this but there are many others in women's sport.

MrBlobby I'm afraid that article is far to long for me!
If everyone have to read that before they comment then this thread of mine will die a silent death.
I'm interested in STWers gut instinct and replies.
Martinhutch you make a good point about dignity outweighing a fifth or sixth place.
If you read between the lines the athletes who got silver and bronze are also deemed as having more than their fair share of natural testosterone .

I'm interested in STWers gut instinct and replies.

On an issue as complicated as this? 😕

MrBlobby I'm afraid that article is far to long for me!

Ok, just this bit is worth reading. Ross Tuckers view...

Divisions must be defended.
I do not believe that women with hyperandrogenism should be competing unregulated. I believe that the divide between men and women exists precisely to ensure fairness in competition (as far as this is ever possible), and I think that if you respect that division, then a policy that addresses hyperandrogenism must exist. I think CAS made a ludicrous decision, and I think it is damaging to women’s sport. Saying that men and women are different is a biological reality, and in sport, the difference has obvious performance implications. It does not mean “inferior”, but different, so spare me any “patriarchy” nonsense on this (I’ve heard it said, for instance, that women’s performances are slower because of the “****ing patriarchy”. If you think that, let me save you time and tell you to stop reading now, and save us both the aggravation).

I wish that it did not affect individuals like Semenya, but it does. It also affects many, many other women who frankly, have no chance of competing against the right athlete with an advantage that challenges the male-female division. And let me be very clear – this is not the same as tall people dominating in basketball, or people with fast-twitch fibres dominating sprints. We do not compete in categories of height, because we have decided that there is no need to “protect” short people. We certainly do not compete in categories of muscle biochemistry or neurology.

There are many aspects and arguments in this debate, and I respect most of them, but this particular offering of “whataboutery” is garbage, utterly inadmissible in this complex debate. If you want to play whataboutery in this way, think about weight classes in boxing, contact sports, rowing. Would it be fair if someone said “I can’t help my physiology, and I’m 2kg over the limit for “lightweight”, so let me in?” Or, if you did create a division for height in basketball, should we allow people who can’t help that they’re tall because of genes to come down and play with those under 6 foot? Of course not.

Point is, if you create a division to ensure performance equality based on a known performance advantage, then you absolutely must defend that division, however ‘arbitrary’ the line appears to be. The division between men and women is clear. It is obviously significantly influenced by testosterone, and few physiological variables are as clearly (if imperfectly) separate like testosterone is. If that division is to be respected, as it should, then hyperandrogenic women should have some regulation in place.

For that reason, I believe that the IAAF policy around an upper limit was the best solution, for now. It’s not perfect, and anyone who claims it’s simply about testosterone is wrong. But it’s a better place to be than where the sport is, and that’s my opinion. I cannot acknowledge the women’s 800m as a credible event as a result, but I hope that Semenya (and a few others) go out and run 1:52, and I wish she would run and win the 400m too. Sometimes people need to be struck between the eyes to see the obvious.

The actual interview with Denise Lewis, Colin Jackson, Paula Radcliffe and others after the event was quite interesting, they essentially said that the "average" female athlete competing would have a testosterone level of around three (not sure what units), Caster when tested actually is off there scale which went up to 10. Radcliffe stated that this level equated to giving her an advantage of around 3 -3.5 seconds over that distance, which is huge.

Very difficult subject, you have to feel sorry for Caster, the way she was victimised when it first came out was horrific. But on the flip side, it must be hard for fellow athletes knowing that how ever hard they train, they are probably competing for silver medal.

, it must be hard for fellow athletes knowing that how ever hard they train, they are probably competing for silver medal.

It is tough. Most male sprinters have felt that way over the last couple of Olympic cycles.

Here I think the ethical choice overrides the need for 'equality'. An arbitrary testosterone limit requires the mistreatment of Semanya and probably quite a few other elite female athletes, either through unnecessary and unethical drug treatment, or by ejection from competition. And the result would probably be that a female with an androgen level which is still high compared with the general population, but marginally under the arbitrary ceiling, would win - so still not a 'level playing field', whatever that is.

Once you start making distinctions between two types of human being there are going to be anomalies.

For caucasians the difference between men and women is fairly sharply defined. In other parts of the world it can be less so.

it must be hard for fellow athletes knowing that how ever hard they train, they are probably competing for silver medal.

Started reading mrblobby's article and I'm having difficulty seeing the author's point that this isn't like tall people being good at basketball and those with lots of fast twitch muscle being good sprinters. Maybe I will by the end of it (assuming I get that far) dunno. I know [i]we do[/i] divide sexes, in most competition and a lot of the difference is due to testosterone, so this is kind of blurring of the line a bit, so yeah tricky subject but CAS have already ruled against the limit.

For me it's quite simple, if you have testicles whether external or internal you should not be competing in female events.

To win gold "average" won't help you, you get sixth place and whinge.
If an athlete has natural occurring chemicals or hormones that boost their performance then they got lucky, if an athlete take these to boost their performance then it's doping.

It seems that if it is a natural form of doping from unusually high hormone levels then it's fine then why should they just allow doping for all athletes and at least then you could have a level playing field be it natural or artificial gained? It would then come down to technique and training as to who wins.

That's a very good piece by Ross Tucker. It' really comes down to the decision of whether you sacrifice the rights of the minority or the majority.
Another point is that Caster Semenya has the option to lower her testosterone levels to within a normal range, the other athletes do not have an option to increase their levels to the same as hers. Caster has if you like a little motor in seat tube which she could turn off but at this moment isn't required too.
I wouldn't want to force anyone to take medication though, I'd say to her if you want to compete without suppressants then you can and the world can witness just how good you are and how undoubtedly hard you have trained and worked with this but your time, though it will be recorded, will not qualify for any record and your finishing position won't determine the medals.

so yeah tricky subject but CAS have already ruled against the limit.

Quoting the article...

That CAS ruled this way because they felt that there was insufficient evidence for the performance benefits is one of the stupidest, most bemusing legal/scientific decisions ever made.

As for...

I'm having difficulty seeing the author's point that this isn't like tall people being good at basketball and fast twitch muscle being good sprinters.

I think the point he's making is that those are the rules. We've decided to have different categories for men and women. Just like we've decided to have different weight categories in boxing and rowing. We've decided not to have different categories for muscle type in running, or height in basketball.

It's this bit from the article...

Point is, if you create a division to ensure performance equality based on a known performance advantage, then you absolutely must defend that division, however ‘arbitrary’ the line appears to be.

We know that males have a significant performance advantage over females, and one of the key components to that is testosterone levels.

Think something else that's touched upon in the article is the difference between gender and sex, gender being social and sex being biological. This confuses things significantly for the general public.

I think Lynsey Sharp wasn't complaining about Caster per se but the IAAF leaving a vacuum.
There was an interesting debate on 5live on the run up to the race it also mentioned the number of runners with the same condition that race. For some reason seems to have a high proportion of intersex competitors going back to the 30s [url= http://indianexpress.com/sports/rio-2016-olympics/half-of-the-800m-final-in-rio-might-well-be-intersex-2914557/ ]randon googled article[/url].
Anyway the debate came down how do you cover in the rules the natural physiological advantage some people have, the example was Bolt due to his stride length is a brilliant 100m runner or with something like testosterone that is a also a banned substance.

Anyway the debate came down how do you cover in the rules the natural physiological advantage some people have, the example was Bolt due to his stride length is a brilliant 100m runner or with something like testosterone that is a also a banned substance.

I don't think it does. We choose to have distinct categories for male and female to account for the biological advantages that male competitors have.. We don't for stride length. Maybe we should have a short leg 100m and a long leg 100m 🙂

IAAF leaving a vacuum.

Indeed. The IAAF did try and find a solution but were overruled by CAS.

I have read that article, and a few other too and to say this issue in complex and emotionally tough understates it. The question is quite simple, you're basically asking "what is a woman?", the answer is somewhat more complex.

One way is testosterone level, Caster has around 5 times more testosterone than the average female, a level not far off the average male. Testosterone, as many know, can be used to gain a performance advantage, see Floyd Landis for example. So, female athletes, Linsey in this case, are suggesting that she has an unfair advantage over the field. The counter argument is that she physiologically speaking, she is female, she's not boosted her testosterone artificially, she is merely competing the way she was made.

I read somewhere that if you look at sex as a linear, not binary measurement then she is somewhat further along then line than the average female athlete, but is certainly not all the way to male.

So, what do you do? No idea. My gut instinct is that a upper limit of testosterone is a good thing but I can completely get why many would not see that as fair.

Caster has if you like a little motor in seat tube which she could turn off

It's not. It's a perfectly natural physiological variation, not an artifically-introduced aid. Turning it off requires long-term drug treatment, which I'm sure is not without side-effects.

Caster has been treated dreadfully - for me the ethical impact of forcing women to take medication to compete far outweighs the disappointments of a handful of elite athletes. It is how you treat the minorities in your society and sport that is a true guide to fairness.

/me Considers making a comment - thinks better of it…

Rachel

It's a perfectly natural physiological variation, not an artifically-introduced aid.

Agree. Just like male/female is a natural physiological variation that we choose to categories. I guess the point is that this variation gives such a large advantage in competition against women who don't have it, should she still be allowed to compete in that category?

Considers making a comment - thinks better of it…

I'm sure it would be a very interesting perspective Rachel.

Especially if you really do have all the gear.

Agree. Just like male/female is a natural physiological variation that we choose to categories. I guess the point is that this variation gives such a large advantage in competition against women who don't have it, should she still be allowed to compete in that category?

I think the difference is that it is an identifiable and measureable (and reversible) difference. I disagree with the author in your piece that other massive physiological differences in athletes are irrelevant, it's just that either the origins of most of them are not fully understood, or they cannot be reversed.

Or at least, their reversal is so obviously ethically dubious that we would never consider it. Which brings us back to the suggestion that androgen suppression is a benign intervention. It's not. It will undoubtedly have wider knock-on effects outside just muscle mass.

Just because you can tinker with an athlete's androgen levels doesn't mean you should.

Semenya (unfortunate name) has no womb, no ovaries but does have internal testes.

Do I feel sorry for her? Yes.

Is it fair that she be allowed to race women? No.

<possibly controversial comment>

It's all just running up and down for shiny medals, why does everyone act like it's something important?

</possibly controversial comment>

In the grand scheme, no, although it helps people understand the world around them a bit better in some cases.

Perhaps black male athletes should race in a separate event to white male athletes in the 100m for instance , they obviously have an advantage if you look at the results.

One of the major problems is that this needs to be considered dispassionately without reference to individuals but given that fundamentally it is related to Semenya (as she is the athlete that has ended up as the figurehead) that is difficult to do. It feels like a lose lose situation.

It relates to the fundamental issue of why we separate women's sport. One of the debates on this said that the top women's times for the 800m were outside the fastest couple of '000 times recorded over the distance in a year (the slowest runner in the men's heats was still over 1s faster than the women's GM). That goes well outside covering world class male runners. The IAAFs position is that is primarily due to the difference of higher levels of testosterone that they are exposed to in their development (as top male and female athletes all put in the same training effort), although CAS have ruled against it. If you accept that you need to support women's sport by having separate races then you need to define a woman. Using physical attributes leads to the snide remarks Semenya got when she 1st won, using chemical/hormone levels in the body can lead to people feeling like they're having their gender questioned, self certification could lead to abuse.

The one clear thing is that the IAAF need to get a handle on this soon to preserve the reputation and dignity of their athletes. And until that happens other athletes need to wind their necks in in public.

Semenya (unfortunate name) has no womb, no ovaries but does have internal testes.

Seeking better understanding and possibly augmenting rules from that understanding is good, changing the rules to exclude 1 person who is "too good" doesn't look good. Make it appear less witch-hunty and it'll probably fair better.

Negative doping or making her run in a different, presumably absolutely tiny category, does not sound like a good move to me.

Don't know how many of you have seen the post 800m women's race interview with Brit Linsey Sharp, but she seemed rather upset at the officials for letting Caster Semenya compete.

shoving a microphone at some-one who's just completed an Olympic event, and expecting them to give nuanced and definitive answers to such a complex and delicate subject was pretty harsh.

I think a lot of people, athletes or otherwise, struggle to give a nuanced and definitive answer to lots of questions, it's not just the heat of the moment. However, athletes should learn to keep their traps shut on stuff that is likely to embarrass them later (see also Aussie, German and French cyclists)

They used to test for a Y chromosome, which on the face of it seems logical to me. But they stopped in 1982 or something according to Wikipedia. I don't know why.

Clearly the three podium winners at the 800 m were born on a different scale to most other women. Having a Y chromosome and gonads isn't on a level playing field to women without these. So it's not surprising that people would want to find a way of excluding these women from the "female" category that they compete in. We categorise a lot of other things in sport, particularly when you look at disability sport. Some people are sadly losers when it comes to the categorisation (e.g. [url= http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14447289.Scots_Paralympics_hero_deemed_not_disabled_enough_to_compete_in_Rio/ ]Scottish disabled swimmer banned from Rio[/url]).

Whether you categorise based on chromosomes or testosterone, I think the outcome is fair.

Whether you categorise based on chromosomes or testosterone, I think the outcome is fair.

On who?

On who?

Not on anybody. Just 'fair'.

Worth keeping in mind, even if you limited her testosterone production from now on via reverse doping, she will still have the bone structure and (most of) musculature from the years of elevated testosterone.

Here is a question, if she was in combat sports where the implications of doping can have life changing effects (by getting knocked out) on opponents rather than just pushing them down the placings, would we still be OK with this?

If I had a daughter who wanted to do MMA (which I would be fine with), and she was booked to fight a Semenya type, I'm not sure I would consider that a fair fight.

If I had a daughter who wanted to do MMA (which I would be fine with), and she was booked to fight a Semenya type, I'm not sure I would consider that a fair fight.

But then what if you had a daughter like Semenya who'd devoted her life to the sport only to be told that she couldn't compete because the chemistry of her body didn't fall into what we've determined to be sufficiently female so as to not give a significant advantage over other females.

It's a horrendous situation to have to try and sort out. IAAF did try, but then CAS ruled against them. So looks like they've stepped away from it.

If everyone have to read that before they comment then this thread of mine will die a silent death.
I'm interested in STWers gut instinct and replies.

So let's just add more uninformed noise to the internet, instead of doing a little background reading? I have read a few articles about this and it is an incredibly difficult problem to resolve. "Gut instinct" is worth nothing in this case, and is a disservice to the athletes involved.

Under current rules Semenya is eligible to compete as a woman, and I agree that the previous rule forcing her to medicate her natural testosterone level seems unfair and unethical. If we decide to change the definition of female for competitive purposes, that's a different issue, and good luck coming up with something that is fair to all involved. Would you end up with multiple competitive classes for each athletic event, based on your testosterone range, like boxing weight classes, or Paralympic disability classifications?

There has been special treatment in men's cycling for biological outliers, where riders with naturally high haemocrit levels were allowed to compete, even though they breached the levels set to catch dopers.

I think Semenya has shown a lot of grit and grace under pressure, in the face of some shoddy treatment. Coe's comments and timing were partularly poor.

A little background reading? ? Have you seen the length of that article !?
I agree with the rest of your response though.

BillOddie - Member

Worth keeping in mind, even if you limited her testosterone production from now on via reverse doping, she will still have the bone structure and (most of) musculature from the years of elevated testosterone.

Here is a question, if she was in combat sports where the implications of doping can have life changing effects (by getting knocked out) on opponents rather than just pushing them down the placings, would we still be OK with this?

If I had a daughter who wanted to do MMA (which I would be fine with), and she was booked to fight a Semenya type, I'm not sure I would consider that a fair fight.

Well a similar issue has actually come up in MMA with Fallon Fox. A post operative transexual man (born a man, now a woman), who fights in womens MMA.

Well a similar issue has actually come up in MMA with Fallon Fox. A post operative transexual man (born a man, now a woman), who fights in wom

I think bring someone who is transexual into a debate about Caster is a bit dangerous. They are very, very different conditions and not in any way related to each other.

Is it a different issue. Though it does highlight the effect of testosterone.

To quote Joanna Harper from the linked article earlier...

I would also like to relate a two-part epiphany that I had after my transition. In 2005, nine months after starting HRT, I was running 12% slower than I had run with male T levels; women run 10-12% slower than men over a wide range of distances. In 2006 I met another trans woman runner and the she had the same experience. I later discovered that, if aging is factored in, this 10-12% loss of speed is standard among trans women endurance athletes. The realization that one can take a male distance runner, make that runner hormonally female, and wind up with a female distance runner of the same relative capability was life changing for me.

With testosterone (or T) levels perhaps being the biggest differentiator between male and female running performance. You could argue that the male/female classification is actually a convenient proxy for a high/low testosterone classification in terms of running performance.

lunge

I think bring someone who is transexual into a debate about Caster is a bit dangerous. They are very, very different conditions and not in any way related to each other.

Is it? a lot of the arguments and controversy around Fallon Fox(FF) have been similar if not identical to those around Semenya.

On the face of it, having a man (ex man) fighting women sounds absurd, but her supporters are keen to point out that due to exogenous hormones her testosterone levels are only slightly higher than the average woman and her bone density and musculature will diminish to female levels over time.

[url= http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html?_r=0 ]Very interesting article about Dutee Chand, the Indian female sprinter, who's recently been up against it with the IAAF and CAS[/url]

What struck me when I first read this a few weeks ago were four things:

1. The extent to which that testosterone has an influence on athletic ability is clearly not agreed on and has limited scientific backing.

2. Women with XY chromosomes over index among athletes vs the rest of the population. But no-one knows why.

3. The indignity of sex testing (issuing femininity cards!) is hardly setting out a vision of inclusivity.

4. No-one is assessing male testosterone levels (beyond use of synthetic testosterone).

Gender has for so long been viewed fundamentally differently from all other physical characteristics. Unlike height, where everyone is somewhere on a continuum between short and tall, gender has always been viewed in binary terms: male or female. Intersex evidently challenges this notion. And so does self-perception even without any apparent blurring of physical lines ("I've always felt like a man born in a woman's body").

The way this is played out and the treatment given to the likes of Semenya and Chand, we're hardly likely to make any progress, are we?

The extent to which that testosterone has an influence on athletic ability is clearly not agreed on and has limited scientific backing.

That's interesting because it's clearly considered a performance enhancer. And considering the specific case of Semenya...

Semenya, plus a few others, have no restriction. It has utterly transformed Semenya from an athlete who was struggling to run 2:01 to someone who is tactically running 1:56. My impression, having seen her live and now in the Diamond League, is that she could run 1:52, and if she wanted to, would run a low 48s 400m and win that gold in Rio too.

So clearly suppressing her testosterone to the normal female levels has quite a significant negative impact on her performance. From not even gaining the qualification time for the Commonwealth games under treatment to now being seemingly on course to break the world record.

There's also the question of how bodies respond to elevated levels of testosterone. Some do much more than others.

You could argue that the male/female classification is actually a convenient proxy for a high/low testosterone classification in terms of running performance.

I would foresee a lot of complaint from more conservative athletics people.

When we choose to accept classifications in sport (disabled/abled, heavy/light, etc.) then we have to draw arbitrary lines somewhere. Someone will loose out, but but the general population wins because we all feel like we can aspire to something.

I accept I can't compete in the lightweight division of rowing/boxing. I also accept I can't compete as a woman. The only thing that is upsetting a handful of people here, is that the line is being drawn whilst they are standing on the wrong side. If the line existed since the beginning of time (like weight divisions for example) then people grow up knowing where they stand. You never feel like you've lost something you didn't have in the first place.

What about the other two girls in the race, the ones who came second and third. Didn't the article say they had abnormally high T ratings too?

Is any of this down to the new steroids synthesized from animal proteins as opposed to yams?

If I had a daughter who wanted to do MMA (which I would be fine with), and she was booked to fight a Semenya type, I'm not sure I would consider that a fair fight.

My daughter is solid as hell and very strong. If the school did Judo she'd flatten everyone. I have no idea if there's any fundamental difference between her and the other kids. But, because she *looks* like a girl, she'd be fine.

There have probably been athletes like Semenya running since forever. All this is because she *looks* boyish. Which isn't nice.

Anyway - so she has a genetic advantage - don't all top athletes? Not seeing the difference. It's like saying 'sorry Caster, you can't race, you're too good'. But isn't that the point?

And then there's the rank hypocrisy. Bolt dominated the sprints, and we think that's just the best thing ever. No-one's been testing him for physical abnormalities, have they? And what about all those men who aren't good enough? Can we get tested to see if we have low testosterone and then race with the girls? Can we bollocks.

And as for Paralympics - can of worms, that is. What about Sarah Storey in the cycling?

Anyway - so she has a genetic advantage - don't all top athletes? Not seeing the difference. It's like saying 'sorry Caster, you can't race, you're too good'. But isn't that the point?

It's not a genetic advantage - it's a [u]massive[/u] genetic difference. If we let women with Y chromosomes/male levels of testosterone/no ovaries or womb/with gonads compete against 'normal' women then we destroy a category of "female".

The message isn't that they can't race, because I'm sure they would fall into the "male" category if we use any of the above mentioned characteristics to define the category. It's not that they are too good either. It's just about creating categories that create a reasonably level playing field for the majority of the world's population.

So how many men have massive genetic differences?

[quote=fanatic278 ]When we choose to accept classifications in sport (disabled/abled, heavy/light, etc.) then we have to draw arbitrary lines somewhere. Someone will loose out, but but the general population wins because we all feel like we can aspire to something.
I accept I can't compete in the lightweight division of rowing/boxing. I also accept I can't compete as a woman.

The trouble is that the general population of women can't aspire to perform like Semenya any more than they can aspire to perform like the average male club 800m runner. Because in both cases they have a huge disadvantage.

The point here is that there are effectively some heavyweights competing in the lightweight division, because the rules allow them to measure their weight differently. It's effectively almost the same as allowing you to compete as a woman.

Why don't we have a 'Clydesdale' category in MTB races? Should we?

[quote=molgrips ]So how many men have massive genetic differences?

In the same way as Semenya? None.

Though the whole point is that the "male" category is effectively an open category - it's simply the women's where they limit who can compete in order to level the playing field, and if you allow those who have largely male characteristics (in terms of those things which influence how good you are at sport) then it's not a level playing field.

So how many men have massive genetic differences?

But women's racing is different as there has to be a line where you say that beyond this point you're not female and so you can compete but only in the stronger (men's) category. The challenge is how you define and where you put that line.

As a said before, the question is "what defines a woman?".

The purpose of having separate races for Females and Males is to allow each to compete on respective level playing fields.

Allowing intersex to compete in the female category upsets the level playing field, it's unfair.

But not allowing intersex to complete is discrimination against them, it's unfair.

Can't realistically have a separate intersex category for various reasons including it wouldn't be eligible to large enough populous to have the same significance as the other categories.

Could run a handicap system, have intersex people compete with females but run further, or with males and run shorter - but how would the appropriate handicap be determined.

It is a somewhat impossible situation.

All the athletes should be taken shopping.
If they can spend more than 10 minutes choosing curtains that's all the proof I'd need of gender.

All the athletes should be taken shopping.
If they can spend more than 10 minutes choosing curtains that's all the proof I'd need of gender.

😆

This thread needed that. Thanks!

In the same way as Semenya? None.

No, not in the same way - in any way. Answer - we don't know, because no-one's tested, because no-one looks at a man and goes 'ooh you look like an alien, better test you for alien DNA'.

Undercurrent of sexism in this, for it to be raised now about that particular athlete.

Could run a handicap system

That is the only logical way out - like weight categories for boxers or disablility categories for Paralympics - but that's a horrendous shake-up of sport and it might ruin it completely. It really wouldn't end well.

Molgrips, your first post there is quite ridiculous. Go back and read all the article linked to on the first page.

Molgrips, your first post there is quite ridiculous. Go back and read all the article linked to on the first page.

This x1000!!!! 😯

I was reading about this the other day, and apparently, a higher level of testosterone in a woman doesn't necessarily give them an athletic advantage because their bodies are not necessarily able to use the extra testosterone. I will have to try and find the article I was reading ....

Vickypea, that's also mentioned in [url= http://sportsscientists.com/2016/05/hyperandrogenism-women-vs-women-vs-men-sport-qa-joanna-harper/ ]the article [/url]that I linked to. Something to do with androgen receptors apparently... here it is...

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) – a condition in which the body is unable to utilize the testosterone in the blood stream

Functional testosterone is testosterone taken up and used by the body’s cells. If a protein called the androgen receptor doesn’t operate normally, then a woman can have a lot of T in her blood, but her cells don’t respond to it. This is the root cause of the AIS that I mentioned earlier. The high T in the blood streams of women with AIS is not functional. Women with AIS have little athletic advantage over other women.

Really is worth reading the whole thing.

Thanks Mr Blobby, yes AIS is what I was reading about. I'll have a read of that article.

[quote=molgrips ]Undercurrent of sexism in this

Of course - because women's sport is fundamentally sexist - and to take that further, sport is fundamentally sexist because women can't compete on an equal basis with men. In this context sexism isn't bad and is exactly what is being defended by limiting T levels.

Having looked into the numbers, the limit the IAAF were previously imposing of 10 nmol/L is still within the normal male range of 9.4nmol/L to 37.1nmol/L. At the bottom end (and where a man might be recommended testosterone substitution), but within the normal male range. I don't know what levels Semenya (or other athletes) has naturally, but given her drop off in performance when lowering it to that level you have to assume significantly higher, possibly close to the average male level of 23.5nmol/L (without wanting to speculate too much, given the likely explanations for raised testosterone levels, you would expect close to normal male levels of hormones).

So top 3 this year are inter-sex to some unknown extent..
So we can expect that to be Top 10 at next Olympics.

It's going to be interesting in 8 years or so when the only obviously female contenders are in horse dancing and synchronised swimming.

Not that I care either way. Didn't watch a single event and think its a joke how much UK spends chasing medals.

For many track/cycling/swimming events there is with suprising consistency a 10% difference between male and female WR. For 800m the male WR is 100s woman WR 113s, indicates that there is actually might be room for improvement in the womens WR rather than the performance at the Rio 800m finals being above the norm.

Bolt dominated the sprints, and we think that's just the best thing ever. No-one's been testing him for physical abnormalities, have they?

So, given that there isn't a neat divide between the sexes, why is it so important to "protect women's sport"? What's more important- the right of intersex people to join in and compete, or the right of women to win medals?

I still don't get the argument that it's ok for tall basketball players to dominate basketball (thus short people don't have a chance) but it's not ok for Caster Semenya to dominate the 800 m because of her natural advantage (assuming she doesn't have AIS, in which case she doesn't have an advantage). Why are all other types of genetic advantage ok except the intersex one?

So, given that there isn't a neat divide between the sexes, why is it so important to "protect women's sport"?

It's not open category and all compete at the same level. But, taking the Olympics 800m as an example, the fastest time in the women's final was 1s slower than the slowest time recorded in any of the men's heats and that was by one of the refugee team and in itself was nearly 2s slower than the next man. As a 15 year old my 800m on was faster than 4 of the female runners in their heats.

So you'd destroy women's ability to compete in elite sport. Or you keep women's categories and the qualification becomes do you look like a girl/woman.

@vickypea To me you can't use basketball as an example as to why we shouldn't protect women's sport categorisation. Basketball also has male and female categorisation I think you'll find. The fact that they choose not to categorise by height is irrelevant. If I was a short young athlete then I'm sure I wouldn't gravitate towards basketball as a youth. And protecting the rights of short people to compete at basketball hardly equates to protecting the right of women to compete at all sport.

i agree with everything Martinhutch has said on this thread.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration that allowing women like Caster Semenya to compete "destroys women's ability to compete in elite sport". It's equivalent to saying that Michael Phelps has single-handedly destroyed men's ability to compete in elite swimming.
Athletes from rich nations are destroying the ability of those from developing countries to compete in elite sport. Us Brits, with our massive funding for elite sport, get the best facilities and nutrition.

My point being that there is no such thing as a level playing field in international sports.

Michael Phelps is a man, competing in a male category. He is not in any conceivable way destroying the legitimacy of his category.

Countries who succeed with individual athletes due to hard work, training and science are not destroying categories. African nations seem to do very well at many sports without as much funding.

Women with XY chromosomes and as much testosterone as a man are destroying the women's category (at least in 800m running). I don't see it asking too much to protect this category, at the expense of a handful of intersex women. It won't seem fair to the few dozen intersex athletes in the world, but it certainly seems fairer to the millions of other women athletes.

@fanatic278: if we all agree that there's a blurred line between the sexes then "protecting women's sport" doesn't make sense. You can't have both arguments. Why is a woman's right to win a medal more important than treating intersex people as equal members of society, including within the sporting world?
Can't we just admire people's ability to shine at sports regardless of what natural advantage they have?

For me, it's quite simple. It has been decided that we split the field in to 2 categories, male and female. So, the question is simple, who fits in which category? Or, what defines a female?

The basketball analogy would be easy, You have a under 6' category and a 6'+ category, that easy to measure and simple to administer. They don't do that, they instead choose to split it to male and female, like almost all sports.

So, take Caster and any specific individuals out of it, how do you define who competes in each category? And by extension, how do you measure it to ensure some semblance of fairness?

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration that allowing women like Caster Semenya to compete "destroys women's ability to compete in elite sport".

You asked why is it important to protect women's sport though. If you're not going to restrict based on (what the governing body considers the key performance differentiator between the sexes) then why have women's categories at all? Or are you splitting on 'do they look like a woman', which was the logic that led to athletes having to stand naked in front of doctors to prove it.

For me the line between man and woman isn't that blurred. 99.99% of the population clearly fit in one side or the other. There is clear space between man and women in terms of chromosomes, testosterone and internal/external organs. There are only a very small percentage of women that don't clearly fit in either category. For the sake of the 49.995% of the world's population that clearly fit into the female category, then I think it fair to exclude the 0.01% of intersex athletes.

In other words, I don't think it is fair to treat intersex people as being the same as women when it comes to sport.

What lunge said.

We've chosen to have women's sport as a separate category to men's. If we didn't there mostly wouldn't be women competing at an elite level in sport. Such is the physical advantage that men have. So we need to protect those categories. The question is what to do with individuals who don't fit neatly into either category. E.g. Intersex who have some of the advantages of male competitors like high T. Allow them to compete in women's sport with a significant advatage or let them compete in men's sport without. Or something else.

The tall people at basketball or people with long legs at 100m is irrelevant to this debate as we've chosen not to categorise based on those charateristics, even though they clearly are advantageous.

And anyone who thinks this is because someone doesn't look particularly feminine really doesn't understand the issue.

I wonder how many men are secretly alarmed that a woman can be so fast? 😉