MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Mr blobby, I never said anything about this being related to an athlete's outward appearance. There is a blurred line between the sexes, which is becoming better understood and accepted in modern society, while sport seems to languish in the dark ages. Just because it "chose categories" doesn't mean they have to stick to them.
That Caster Semenya could win a gold medal after they way she's been treated is amazing. Good for her!
I wonder how many men are secretly alarmed that a woman can be so fast?
I would guess not many, as has been said before the winning time in the womens 800m wouldn't be competitive in a mens race - I ran faster at uni and didn't even make the track team.
Just because it "chose categories" doesn't mean they have to stick to them.
Which is why the IAAF tried to introduce a quantifiable measure as to who is eligible to compete in the womens category, CAS ruled that there is not enough evidence to suggest using testosterone levels is the correct measure.
So what should be used?
Vickypea
If you agree with the notion that women's sports are worthwhile then you have to draw a line. You obviously feel that Caster Semenya falls one side of that line. I disagree. Where would you draw the line if not on testosterone levels/testes? Self identification??
The basketball analogy would be easy, You have a under 6' category and a 6'+ category, that easy to measure and simple to administer.
It wouldn't, height is diurnally variable, with hair or without, breathe in or breathe out, etc
This is one if those issues where there is no easy answer for either governing bodies or athletes, hopefully the least worst pathway whatever it is will be chosen
re: Linsey Sharp - sour grapes or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes
[b]Sour Grapes[/b], Pretending that one doesn't want something, because one does not or cannot have it. (The expression originated in "The Fox and the Grapes," one of Aesop's Fables)
is it sour grapes ?
No (she didn't pretend she did not want to win or succeed in the 800m).
I think sports are very worthwhile, but I don't agree with arguments like women's sport needs protecting from intersex women, or that intersex women in sport are destroying women's elite sports, or destroying the sporting rights of millions of women. I am a woman, and I'm proud of women like Caster Semenya and what they can achieve in the face of being treated like shit and despite the best training facilities like our privileged athletes in the UK.
Sport should be a celebration of what humans can achieve with the characteristics they were given by nature, when at the peak of physical fitness and skills, not about rights to win medals. Rights to win medals comes pretty low in my list of priorities with regards to human rights.
vickypeaI am a woman, and I'm proud of women like Caster Semenya and what they can achieve in the face of being treated like shit and despite the best training facilities like our privileged athletes in the UK.
Yeah, those privileged UK athlete's just need to grow a set of balls.
^ if we're going to resort to childish comments I'm out of here. Try reading some science about intersex, and maybe you'd realise that it's a complex set of different conditions, which are actually quite common, and such people can't be brushed under the carpet because sport chose some categories back in the dark ages.
Sport should be a celebration of what humans can achieve with the characteristics they were given by nature, when at the peak of physical fitness and skills, not about rights to win medals
If that was the case then there should be no women's events at all, everyone in the same class competeing with the physical attributes given to them by nature.
As soon as you start introducing protected categories, such as female/weight events you need a criteria for measuring that. In drawing that line someone somewhere is going to lose out relative to where the line is drawn. That doesn't mean the line shouldn't be drawn.
How can you describe someone as intersex and then say they should run in the women's category?
The problem with Semenya is that she is genetically male. She has XY chromosomes. As in a man. It is a tricky one. I feel really sorry for her, but she has an abnormal condition which confers an advantage compared to genetic females. There is no way of solving the problem without being 'unfair' to someone.
Genuine question - Where do gender reassigned participants fall in competitive sport, both at an elite level and a weekend warrior level? Is a man who has had sex change surgery able to 'legitimately' pick up the trophy at the local cross country race for the female category? Do folk that have had gender reassignment surgery retain the male specific natural athletic advantages?
Guidelines now say they don't even have to have surgery!
I'm not going to convince vickypea by rephrasing all of the good arguments made here. Sometimes it's impossible to make reasoned argument to an emotional response. So I'm off on a bike ride, with my two daughters. My Y chromosome won't make me any faster unfortunately.
I felt bad for the rest of the field lining against Semenya. It looked like a clear case of taking a knife to a gunfight. 😯
Devils advocate question, why should Caster compete as a female? She has testes, an XY chromosome and high testosterone. By what definition is she female?
vickypea^ if we're going to resort to childish comments I'm out of here.
My comment was glib, but on point. Yours was pointless and little more than virtue signalling. The fact that you had to add the qualifier "I'm a woman and I'm proud" shows that you think the issue is simple sexism and discrimination when it's clearly more complex.
If the Democratic Republic of Congo discovered a tribe with inordinately high numbers of intersex "women" and developed a training programme around them for the 2024 Olympics they would clean up in every sport that relied on speed or power.
ou'd realise that it's a complex set of different conditions, which are actually quite common,
Clearly not that common.
such people can't be brushed under the carpet because sport chose some categories back in the dark ages.
Who said anything about brushing them under the carpet. Let them have all the rights and privileges in life they desire. Give them their own Olympic category. Give them their own chat show on channel 4 for all I care.
Mr blobby, I never said anything about this being related to an athlete's outward appearance. There is a blurred line between the sexes, which is becoming better understood and accepted in modern society, while sport seems to languish in the dark ages. Just because it "chose categories" doesn't mean they have to stick to them.
Gender is a social thing and ideas around it do evolve over time. Sex is biological. This is an issue of sex and not gender.
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 think sports are very worthwhile, but I don't agree with arguments like women's sport needs protecting from intersex women
Firstly, there is no suggestion that intersex atheletes are not eligible for male categories, the debate is on where exactly the line should be drawn on who is eligible to compete in the female category.
Following through on your logic that womems sport doesn't need protecting - then the female categories would simply be amalgamated with the mens to create a single category for all competitors. Then only women able to perform at elite male level would be able to participate in elite sports, this would dramatically reduce the number of women competing in elite sports.
However, if you agree that a seperate female category should be maintained then you must also accept that a boundary needs to be set on who is or is not eligible for that female category. You cannot have two seperate categories without a boundary defining the difference between the categories.
[quote=vickypea ]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?
The thing is, the very argument that the line is blurred is ignoring the fact that such intersex women are genetically men. In reality if you look at women who are genetically women there's a pretty distinct line - the very highest level of testosterone for those is about half that of the bottom end of functioning men (men with lower testosterone levels than that will tend to be proscribed testosterone supplements in order to enable them to function properly). Whatever you might suggest about such conditions being common, in reality those identifying as women with testosterone levels above that which the IAAF attempted to specify are less than 1 in 1000. In the general population that is - clearly they are over-represented in elite competition, which is where the problem arises. Yes, I have read some of the science - I read the article posted earlier on the thread (and followed up some of the info).
Nobody is suggesting not treating intersex people as a normal part of society - no more than anybody is suggesting not treating men as a normal part of society. They are simply suggesting that in order to be fair to 99.9% of those identifying as women neither of those groups should be allowed to compete as women (if their T levels are above a certain limit). Both groups are free to compete with men. This is no more unfair to intersex women than it is to fully functioning men who identify as women. Those currently dominating some women's sports wouldn't be able to compete with the elite men - but then neither can I or anybody else posting on this forum.
[quote=vickypea ]Sport should be a celebration of what humans can achieve with the characteristics they were given by nature, when at the peak of physical fitness and skills, not about rights to win medals. Rights to win medals comes pretty low in my list of priorities with regards to human rights.
Fine - so you're not bothered about completely abolishing women's categories? Women can still compete against the men, they simply won't be winning any medals. Nobody is suggesting removing anybody's rights to compete in sports, simply the best way to make the playing field the most level for the majority of those not blessed with a Y chromosome. The characteristics given by nature to those we're talking about aren't those of women.
I don't think it's fair for the female athletes, they train their B*ll*cks off for years for the Olympics then someone with an actual pair turns up and beats them all. Not fair!
A number of people have been posting very specific descriptions of Semenya's biological characteristics in this thread. There have been some press stories based on leaks from "sources" but as far as I'm aware, nothing official has been ever been published and the specific details of her physiology remain private and unknown to the public (quite correctly).
As I said before, under current rules, she has been judged eligible to compete as a woman, and that's all we know.
The article linked earlier on the thread was poorly written, contained a lot of badly-expressed opinion and not much science.
I'm not suggesting we abolish categories, I'm saying that sport needs to wake up to the fact that the definition of a woman may have to be adjusted. It's an inconvenient truth to some, that 1-2% of humans are intersex. That's a lot of people.
So, are there lots of intersex women in elite sport, in which case there has to be a re-think on the definition of female. Or, there are just a few, who pop up now and then, and perform brilliantly, in which case, why can't they be viewed the same way as other people with natural advantages, like Phelps and Bolt? I know athletes work their backsides off, but so what? They get paid. I work my backside off too! I'm sure plenty of male swimmers and sprinters worked themselves really hard but medals have eluded them in the past few Olympics because of Phelps and Bolt. The fact that nobody minds that they deviate from the "standard" human body but they mind very much about females who have higher testosterone levels seems unfair.
Mr blobby, I didn't say it was an issue of gender rather than sex. You're basing all or most of your opinion on that article, which I have read and have a low opinion of its quality. There is a blurred line between the genders, yes, but there is also a blurred line between the sexes. Up to 2% of humans are born with an intersex status.
vickypeaI'm not suggesting we abolish categories, I'm saying that sport needs to wake up to the fact that the definition of a woman may have to be adjusted. It's an inconvenient truth to some, that 1-2% of humans are intersex. That's a lot of people.
So what about post operative transexuals who take hormones. They are essentially (in their words) women born in mens bodies. Shouldn't they be allowed to compete in the womens category if they identify as women and have no testicles, no male genitalia at all actually ?
Vickypea, Ignoring Caster for the moment, how would you decide who can compete in the female category and who competes with the men?
For those of you who think that people with an X and a Y chromosome and internal testes, makes them male, here's some reading. Their bodies don't respond to their increased testosterone levels.
Not that any of us even know if this applies to Caster Semenya!
Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs when the body cannot use androgens at all. People with this form of the condition have the external sex characteristics of females, but do not have a uterus and therefore do not menstruate and are unable to conceive a child (infertile). They are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals have male internal sex organs (testes) that are undescended, which means they are abnormally located in the pelvis or abdomen. Undescended testes can become cancerous later in life if they are not surgically removed. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome also have sparse or absent hair in the pubic area and under the arms.
For those of you who think that people with an X and a Y chromosome and internal testes, makes them male, here's some reading.
OK so I read your piece, and first paragraph states;
People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell
I'm not sure what point your trying to make?
[quote=kcr ]As I said before, under current rules, she has been judged eligible to compete as a woman, and that's all we know.
Well we also know that her natural T levels are way above the limit the IAAF set - a limit which was set at over twice that of women with a disease which results in raised T levels, and over 3 times the normal levels of T in women. We also know how and where T is produced in the human body, and that the body parts men have produce a lot more of it than the body parts women do - even when women have a disease as mentioned above.
It might be speculation, but we're applying Occam's Razor here - any other explanation is rather far fetched.
vickypea - Member
For those of you who think that people with an X and a Y chromosome and internal testes, makes them male, here's some reading. Their bodies don't respond to their increased testosterone levels.
Not that any of us even know if this applies to Caster Semenya!
Androgen insensitivity syndrome is a condition that affects sexual development before birth and during puberty. People with this condition are genetically male, with one X chromosome and one Y chromosome in each cell. Because their bodies are unable to respond to certain male sex hormones (called androgens), they may have mostly female sex characteristics or signs of both male and female sexual development.
Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome occurs when the body cannot use androgens at all. People with this form of the condition have the external sex characteristics of females, but do not have a uterus and therefore do not menstruate and are unable to conceive a child (infertile). They are typically raised as females and have a female gender identity. Affected individuals have male internal sex organs (testes) that are undescended, which means they are abnormally located in the pelvis or abdomen. Undescended testes can become cancerous later in life if they are not surgically removed. People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome also have sparse or absent hair in the pubic area and under the arms.
Is there not a second condition which means a small proportion of these folk do have some sort of response to the elevated testosterone and (for want of a better expression) benefit physically from it? That was my understanding.
Their bodies don't respond to their increased testosterone levels.
I do not believe this to be accurate. Some parts of their anatonomy do not react to testosterone but the rest of their phisiology does react to the hormone, muscle mass, haemoglobin concentrations etc it is these bits that give men the advantage in races, not desended testes.
[quote=vickypea ]The article linked earlier on the thread was poorly written, contained a lot of badly-expressed opinion and not much science.
The article which was an interview with a leading scientist in this field who was the first person ever to publish a paper on the subject? What exactly are your credentials that you're dismissing her comments? Or are you complaining that it's not a scientific paper (so we can actually all understand it)?
I'm not suggesting we abolish categories, I'm saying that sport needs to wake up to the fact that the definition of a woman may have to be adjusted. It's an inconvenient truth to some, that 1-2% of humans are intersex. That's a lot of people.
The vast majority of which would meet the rules established by the IAAF - the limit they set was way beyond normal female levels and would include most intersex humans identifying as women. Exactly what would your definition be?
Or, there are just a few, who pop up now and then, and perform brilliantly, in which case, why can't they be viewed the same way as other people with natural advantages, like Phelps and Bolt?
Because as has been pointed out multiple times, the situation isn't analogous. If we were to say that Bolt and Phelps have genetic advantages which mean they can't compete with men then there is no other category for them to compete in. They would be barred from competing in exactly the way you were complaining about earlier. However that is not the case if you ban women with high levels of testosterone from competing with women - there are still competitions they can compete in, because the male category is a defacto open category. The women's category is inherently a category with physiology limits - otherwise it is completely worthless and you might as well abolish it. Or are you bothered that such athletes would no longer be winning Olympic medals?
[quote=vickypea ]For those of you who think that people with an X and a Y chromosome and internal testes, makes them male, here's some reading. Their bodies don't respond to their increased testosterone levels.
Not that any of us even know if this applies to Caster Semenya!
I've already read all about that, because it got mentioned in the article you're dismissing (and I did my own further research) - if you missed it, then search for "Maria Jose Martinez Patino" who suffered from that and whose case resulted in chromosome testing being dropped. The existence of such a condition doesn't mean that everybody has it, and the decrease in performance of Semenya when she was reducing her T levels is quite a strong indication that she does respond to it (given the Patino case, I think we'd also know if she suffered from that). What's more, following the Patino case, proof of Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is sufficient to allow an athlete to continue to compete as a women whatever their T levels, hence this point is a complete red herring.
Their bodies don't respond to their increased testosterone levels.
Not that any of us even know if this applies to Caster Semenya!
Given that her times dropped off a cliff when she was talking medication to reduce her testosterone levels, we can reasonably assume that this is not the case.
There is a blurred line between the genders, yes, but there is also a blurred line between the sexes. Up to 2% of humans are born with an intersex status.
I guess the point is that if sports are to have a classification based on sex, with the purpose being to have fair competition for females, then we need to have very clear criteria and a clear line where there is now a blur (which they kind of did until CAS overruled.)
I still think comparing this case to Bolt or Phelps is missing the point.
You're basing all or most of your opinion on that article, which I have read and have a low opinion of its quality.
I'm not really. It's just that one article covers a lot of the issues and I linked to it instead of a number of other articles. Feel free to post others.
[quote=mrblobby ]
You're basing all or most of your opinion on that article, which I have read and have a low opinion of its quality.
I'm not really. It's just that one article covers a lot of the issues and I linked to it instead of a number of other articles. Feel free to post others.
Indeed - I've done a lot of reading around, and pretty much any article contradicting that is of far lower quality (just to take an example, one I just read suggested Semenya has "slightly raised T levels compared to most women"). I've even found some proper scientific research, none of which contradicts that article in any way.
I'd be interested to know on what basis vicky considers the article to be low quality?
Vickypea you seem to have dismissed the original article and then posted something that is clearly explained within this first article.
This is an incredibly sensitive and complex issue and there doesn't really seem like a solution that isn't unfair on one party as far as I can see.
I'm not entirely sure what your arguement is though Vicky? Is it that intersex athletes enjoy a similar advantage in womens sports as Bolt and Phelps do in mens sports? In my opinion, if you separate sports into two gender categories of male and female, you acknowledge that at Elite level men are clearly advantaged over women-based on sex alone-to the point where it is unfair that they compete together. Surely it would follow that intersex athletes are advantaged in a similar (albeit to a much lesser extent) way? As many others have said, it is such a sensitive and complicated issue......and that is before you take into account whether or not the discussion is only taking place based on physical appearance.
Having abnormally high levels of certain chemicals/hormones already does bar you from certain competition. More than 50% red blood cells you can't ride road races. It was set there because it wouldn't naturally occur in almost every male, the T threshold for women was similarly selected as it was so far above what a woman would naturally produce.
That's not a great example mrhoppy, because you can ride with >50% hematocrit if you have medical evidence to prove that is natural for you. That situation is allowed for precisely because the limit isn't set very far above normal levels - rather different to the T level threshold, which is as you point out way above normal levels for women lacking a Y chromosome.
I've been trying but failing to find out exactly what proportion of (if any) women lacking a Y chromosome would have T levels above that threshold even if they were suffering from diseases such as polycystic ovary syndrome. I have a feeling the answer may be none.
There is an anti-malarial spray put into water supplies in southern Africa which is very effective, and saves thousands of lives.
However exposure to the treatment results in a very small percentage increase in "intersex" births , people whose genetic and/or physical make-up don't fit the norms. I presume that Semenya is one of those people.
There, the proportion of the population like her are enough to ensure that she is just a fast female athlete, and that's how the world should treat her. If the gods have given her that make-up, then other athletes should accept that, just as they have accepted their own physical make up to excel over other less athletic people.
@moses if Semenya became intersex due to malaria drugs in the water then it is hardly an act of God. But that is beside the point. The fact that she is less unusual in Africa doesn't change the fact that on a global stage she is extremely rare. Statistically it seems she represents less than 0.01% of the global population. Her physical makeup (or at least similar intersex people like her) is more akin to male than female, so let her compete in that category in international competitions.
anatic278 - Member@moses if Semenya became intersex due to malaria drugs in the water then it is hardly an act of God.
In fairness he said "the Gods" so presumably he meant Odin, Vishnu, Zeus.......all of 'em.
That's not a great example mrhoppy, because you can ride with >50% hematocrit if you have medical evidence to prove that is natural for you.
No such limit now. Replaced by biological passport.
Tom B - firstly in response to your comment about why I posted the explanation about AIS if it was mentioned in that article that I criticized......
Several people in this thread have based their argument on Caster Semenya being a 'man' because they apparently know that she has internal testes and XY chromosomes. We don't actually know if she does have those characteristics, but even if she did, they would suggest androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which the individual has high levels of testosterone but their body doesn't respond to them. The article mentions AIS but didn't mention the XY chromosome or internal testes.
Thus, a woman with AIS is clearly NOT A MAN, despite being XY and having internal testes- and shouldn't be excluded from women's athletics. (I have no idea if Caster has AIS, but this thread is not only about her).
Mr blobby- if you read your article carefully, the author does not state as fact that Caster took therapy to suppress her testosterone, it is his opinion. From your post above, you seem to have interpreted it as fact, and that is one reason why I don't like the article. It is largely based on opinion, sprinkled with some science, and written in a long and convoluted style.
And back to Tom B- I appreciate that my argument may not be clear, being spread across multiple comments, but also because what I'm arguing for is not viewed as fair. And that is the crux of my argument: you can't make sport 'fair' with a totally level playing field, because there are too many variables, e.g.
- Many athletes have natural characteristics that place them at an advantage to the rest of us, including the obvious examples of Bolt and Phelps. No one has yet given me a good reason as to why Caster Semenya cannot be treated the same way.
- Athletes from countries that invest a lot of money in sport are at an advantage, from having better facilities, nutrition, coaching.
- There is a mental component to success in sport- e.g. there's the 'home' advantage.
So, intersex women are inclined to have an athletic advantage, but not as great an advantage as a man has over a woman. I think it's more fair (less unfair?) to respect the rights of intersex women to compete in sports as women, than the rights of women with lower testosterone (but who may have other, different advantages anyway) to win medals. The argument that sport 'chose its categories and must stick to them' is weak.
In a nutshell: it's impossible to make sports 100% fair, but I think the focus of sport should be about humans at their peak of fitness and skill doing amazing things. Less about how many medals you win, and imposing arbitrary definitions of women and men, when there is in fact a blurred line between the sexes.
And finally- back to that article. I felt that the woman being interviewed was not necessarily in a position to give an unbiased opinion. She was transgender and taking hormone treatment, with which she noticed a loss of speed. I love doing sports and I would be really hacked off at losing speed, how much more so would an elite athlete be? She may have mixed feelings about this, including harbouring jealousy that she's had to sacrifice her loss of speed in order to achieve what she wants to with her body, while intersex women don't. This is again, why I don't like the article- there's too much opinion and room for bias.
How do you decide who is an intersex woman and who is an intersex man? Or are all intersex people somehow female by default?
You'll be glad to know that I'm going to shut up as I'm off out mountain biking now - to use what nature gave me 😉
I guess the simple answer to that is that there's no such thing as an "intersex man" or "intersex woman", there are individuals who are intersex, and that definition covers a large range of different physical, hormonal and chromosomal variations.
Individuals who are intersex may choose to identify themselves as male or female. In terms of sport, the governing bodies have to set their own rules for what constitutes male or female for the purposes of competition.
It's obviously a very complex subject without any simple answers.
Not surprised to see that you once again avoided the question, you don't agree with the 'arbitrary rules' set out defining male and female but fail to explain what you think the rules should be.
I'm open to the idea that there may be a more scientific measurement than testosterone levels to define male and female. But I think there has to be a measurement and the argument that setting it at testosterone levels would be unfair to Caster as she's worked very hard just isn't very scientific.
[quote=vickypea ]- Many athletes have natural characteristics that place them at an advantage to the rest of us, including the obvious examples of Bolt and Phelps. No one has yet given me a good reason as to why Caster Semenya cannot be treated the same way.
Several of us have, but you're apparently ignoring it because it doesn't fit in with your beliefs.
In a nutshell: it's impossible to make sports 100% fair, but I think the focus of sport should be about humans at their peak of fitness and skill doing amazing things. Less about how many medals you win, and imposing arbitrary definitions of women and men, when there is in fact a blurred line between the sexes.
Great. Where do I sign up to compete as a woman? I'm sure I could do amazing things competing as one and you'd presumably be happy with that.
And finally- back to that article. I felt that the woman being interviewed was not necessarily in a position to give an unbiased opinion.
I presume you missed the fact she is one of the (if not the) leading authority on this issue, and is accepted as such by people who've spent far more time on this than we have. As for bias - by extension your argument there means that no women is unbiased, and only men can provide unbiased opinions 😉
Everybody has their bias but if Joanna Harper was really bias against high T athletes then I don't think she would be saying that if creates rules based on testosterone levels, then these rules need to include special considerations for people with resistance to androgens.
The fact that the challenge of IAAFs rules was successful shows that international human rights has progressed and I think it is great that human rights are being taken seriously. On the other hand I wonder if the arbitration was able to accurately consider the ramifications of the ruling, there is no precedent so to a certain extent one cannot be sure one way or the other on what the impact of the ruling is without observing it's effect over time.
So what will the future hold? Some possibilities:
1. IFAA manages to close the hole for high T intersex athletes soon - we never find out what the long term impact to competitiveness would have been.
2. Female competition remains open for high T intersex athletes, sectors of the sport start becoming dominated by high T competitors. Creates huge controversy, eventually pressure mounts up and the rules get changed.
3. Female competition remains open for high T intersex athletes, doesn't cause any problems. When people look back at the 2016 Olympic games they wonder what all the fuss was about.
4. People move away from elitist female sport entirely, realise that putting in all that effort just chasing gold medals was a bit silly anyway, female professional athletes make their money from TV, modelling, sponsorship, and exhibition events. [url=
competitions of the 1980's return with a vengence[/url] with Ultimate Aerobics Queen competition of 2021 making history by knocking The World's Got Talent off top spot for viewers and telephone voting figures.
I think Scenario 1 is most likely, and if it does happen then it makes everything else a moot point.
If 1 doesn't occur then I have a feeling that 2 rather than 3 would end up taking place - but TBH this is just a gut feeling without having seen any facts and figures on the numbers of people involved etc.
@ebygom: what do you mean, I've "yet again dodged the question"? The OP asked for our gut feelings and I think I've made my gut feelings clear! It's not as simple as settting an arbitrary testosterone level. As I've already said, I feel it would be less unfair to allow women like Caster Semenya to compete than to either ban them, or make them compete as men (or take hormone treatment). If you're such an expert, you tell me what the definition of a woman should be.
You've said you don't agree with the testosterone limit but haven't proposed an alternative. You think the limit is unfair but cannot say what would be fair
I think the testosterone limit is perfectly adequate for determining who is female for the purposes of sport in cases where someone's sex does not fall neatly into the typical boxes of male/female.
Since there are elite male athletes with low testosterone - a level that overlaps the levels of women, should we let them compete as women if that's apparently the most reliable arbiter of both performance and sex?
@aracer: obviously, your argument didn't convince me, just as mine hasn't convinced you.
The woman interviewed in that article described women's athletics as "the premier sport of the games", which is biased for a start! More seriously though, she uses emotive language like "I fear that much of the anticipation for the upcoming Rio olympics will be overshadowed by the specter of intersex athletes dominating some events....".
She admits herself that people like Caster are extremely rare, so all this should be a non-issue.
Just seen your response Vicky....had a bit of a lost weekend sorry ha! (Joys of being a musician at bank holidays!)
Thanks for your response anyway.....certainly clarifies your viewpoint....can't say I either agree or disagree tbh....it's just such a complex issue.
I agree that A. It's not just about Semenya (I've purposely not named her at all) and B. That we down know whether or not she has AIS etc......as someone else has already suggested though, the fact that she is running 5 seconds quicker now that she doesn't have to lower her T levels would be an indicator that she certainly does benefit from having raised T levels?
From the fact that this is only one race across so many different events at the olympics, if other competitors in her class feel disadvantaged, they'll just have to train for a different event etc.
I do feel that perhaps Linsey Sharp's comments were a result of probing from the media, and really having put 4 years' work in to come 6th you might be looking for a scapegoat too, clearly the winner isn't the problem if you're 6th!
With so many comments about relatively strong, physically capable women being "manish" and so many women I've met being frightened to take up sport seriously due to this perception, I don't think intersex competitors are the problem.
From the fact that this is only one race across so many different events at the olympics, if other competitors in her class feel disadvantaged, they'll just have to train for a different event etc.I do feel that perhaps Linsey Sharp's comments were a result of probing from the media, and really having put 4 years' work in to come 6th you might be looking for a scapegoat too, clearly the winner isn't the problem if you're 6th!
It isn't as simple as this though, it is implied that the 800m silver medalist and possibly the bronze medalist and other finalists also a got performance boost from the suspension of the testosterone limit rules. The rule suspension may have already impacted other events too.
This also leads on to the effect genetic doping will have in the future. The fact a few people born now with a natural, and arguably unfair, advantage (in sport) is nothing compared to what's to come from countries who have the state resources, lack of ethics and desperation to be seen as world leaders in certain sports to implement genetic doping programmes.