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

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? 😉

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 ?

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.

vickypea

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.

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?