Forum menu
A woman is someone who feels like a woman, birthing people, trans women are women, men who menstruate, born in the wrong body, all of it is nonsense.
The tide has started to turn on this mad ideology, hopefully it won’t be long before people start to face consequences for the irreparable harm done to vulnerable people in the name of kindness and tolerance. Doctors who have butchered children should go to prison over this.
Thinking about this today, words like fairness and equality and inclusion go round and around in your head. But how about kindness?
Thinking about Semenya for a minute. We know her background, her success and her very public banishment. That sure as hell wasn't kind. And what comes next has to aim to be kinder to people like her who have found themselves in this position without being malicious, or trying to bend the rules. She thought of herself as female, grew up female and found something she was very good at. She has lots of perfectly legitimate genetic advantages and a body without skeletal issues that avoided injury and the sort of mental strength needed to succeed in elite sport. It just turned out she also had a type of DSD that meant she had 10s of times more testosterone in her body as she grew up than anyone she was lining up against and that was (in addition to her non DSD attributes) highly likely to be sizable factor in her success.
So...IF it is decided from a sports science perspective that someone with Castor's condition can't 'fairly' compete against other athletes in the female category, and that decision is final, what was the kindest way sports bodies, coaches, parents etc could have treated her? I don't personally feel qualified to make the science based decision about if she should compete or not but I do feel able to talk about treating people with kindness.
If a teenage Semenya turned heads at an athletic track tomorrow as a future star maybe the kindest thing would be that entrance to the nations athletic program should involve blood screenings at that point along with all the other medicals you'd get? Is it kinder to investigate younger before they build a whole life around an Olympic career? Kids get pulled at that age when heart issues are discovered and other serious conditions that would make elite training harmful so it would not be without precedent, though obviously still devastating and hard to accept.
When would you want to find out if it was you and in what environment?
And just to throw in a bit of whataboutery, Keely Hodgkinson's 800m PB is a good bit quicker than Semenya, so if the two of them we competing today at their peaks she might have had her work cut out.
And just to throw in a bit of whataboutery, Keely Hodgkinson's 800m PB is a good bit quicker than Semenya, so if the two of them we competing today at their peaks she might have had her work cut out.
Only it's not, it's half a second slower with better equipment and tracks. Semenya is the fourth fastest woman ever and the top two were almost certainly dopers.
Is it kinder to investigate younger before they build a whole life around an Olympic career?
Who is getting "investigated" at a younger age then? Anyone keen to race? Or just those young athletes seen as a bit "suspect"? And what happens when people start insisting on these "investigations" for reasons other than being keen at athletics? Because they will.
Who is getting "investigated" at a younger age then?
As I understand it as it stands every single entrant to a female category of every single event at the next Olympics will be screened. So the question is it kinder to do it late on virtually as you get on the plane after your Olympic selection when you are nationally recognised figure and it will all inevitably be very public, or do it early before those years have been 'wasted" pursuing a dream the system/governing bodies have deemed is not for you.
The earlier you do it, the more people you are testing. Again, would that be testing all promising athletes, or would it be about testing young women based on suspicion?
And note that this IOC change appears to be more about DSD males in women's sport
Genuine question..
Would you describe semenya as a 'dsd male'? And if so, why not a 'dsd female'?
Fair question! Definitely a DSD male.
5-ARD affects people with a male XY karyotype and normal SRY gene, so it affects male sexual development. Many people with 5-ARD aren't fertile, but all have testes (either descended or internal), and those who are fertile produce sperm.
They also produce (and respond to) a normal male amount of testosterone, and have a largely normal male puberty, but the 5α-Reductase deficiency means they don't produce dihydrotestosterone which is responsible for genital and prostate growth. So it's a disorder of male sexual development that mostly affects the genitals.
It's also why I understand that PCOS is seen very differently. Women with PCOS are female in every sense and have a hormone disorder that cause them to produce a bit more testosterone than most women (1.5-2x). Men (and people with 5-ARD) have 10-20x the amount of testosterone than women.
This is just stuff I've read, btw. I'm not a biologist of any sort whatsoever.
But they are often raised as females, because society (including medical staff and parents) often categorize based on what they can see. For these people transitioning to be a man, having lived as a girl and a young women, isn’t always what they want. It’s very problematic when it comes to fairness of competition, but more widely these people shouldn’t be forced to live as a man.
But they are often raised as females, because society (including medical staff and parents) often categorize based on what they can see. For these people transitioning to be a man, having lived as a girl and a young women, isn’t always what they want. It’s very problematic when it comes to fairness of competition, but more widely these people shouldn’t be forced to live as a man.
Yeah, I agree. They’re mostly raised as girls, and after puberty it seems that more than half choose to be men, but I think it should be a choice.
Again, would that be testing all promising athletes, or would it be about testing young women based on suspicion?
I ignored that part of your first question because I thought it was blindingly obvious. As all are to be screened if they make it to the games (and I suspect very soon all international level competition in Olympic sports as IOC protocols are adopted into individual sport's policy) it would be all. You couldn't possibly have a system that just screened 'suspicious' looking teenagers. Yes, as sport is a pyramid of participation more would be screened and more would find out stuff about themselves that they may never have done and that's an issue, even if they are cleared to continue competing in the female category.
So if we are doing agains....if screening was something you were going to have to go through at some point when would you rather it had happened - early on in your elite sports career or just before you go on the plan to the games after selection and you have commited half your life to getting there and turned down other options? Which is the kinder option do you think? My gut feeling is that it's kinder to do it earlier.
This is why I can’t welcome screening of the type the IOC are bringing back in, not because of the impact on athletes at the Olympics, but because it will start a purity test of girls and women more generally.
But if it's not up to you to welcome it (if that's wait fait accompli no matter how much you don't like it, and I have a lot of sympathy with that), but you got to implement it in the kindest way possible - what then?
Well, as the only decision that would be in my hands would be to pull my daughter from whatever team was insisting on testing her, that is what I would do.
Well, as the only decision that would be in my hands would be to pull my daughter from whatever team was insisting on testing her, that is what I would do.
Your daughter would be 16-18 as she got into the elite programme - I think you might be overreaching your authority! I suspect she'd rather that was her decision, not yours.
But you are dodging the question! You are in charge of UK athletics and its how you implement it for the whole sport not just your daughter....or would you just resign? What's the kindest way for a sport's governing body to prepare for this if they knew that for their athletes to compete on the world stage they would have to be screened at some stage (like they already have to have an Athlete Biological Passport)?
Sorry, I thought you were saying that they would be tested “earlier” before entering an Olympic programme. Woman can make their own minds up about their participation in this dystopian nonsense.
Sorry, I thought you were saying that they would be tested before entering an Olympic programme.
Teenagers of about 16-18 is about the age when already identified talented athletes switch from the youth programmes to the full fat elite (or Olympic) programmes.
In most sports - I don't want to think of the ramifications of this in gymnastics.....
Most sports, including athletics and cycling, have kids preparing for the Olympics.
Anyway, you’re only reiterating my fears… this testing doesn’t stop at the Olympics, it will filter down and out to included many women and girls that will now be made to take tests whether they end up going to the Olympics later in their sporting career or not.
Most sports, including athletics and cycling, have kids preparing for the Olympics.
Not really. Braggy parents (and I suspect kids too!) like to think they are in a Olympic programme. What they are in is a 'pathway programme'. Nuanced, but different! But this is very much a topic about nuance.
I agree - its a horrible minefield.
But strip it right back......in every other walk of life we have being trying to knock down barriers and break through glass ceiling and where at all possible treat everyone of every gender equally. No longer careers only men could apply for, voting, applying for mortgages, and discrimination laws. Then you get to sport, an area where women have been disadvantaged historically especially in some other countries, and contrarily we have to maintain that divide between male and female participants for there to be any chance of female equivalence. An athletics meeting with only one open category (that would end up dominated completely by men through no fault of either the men or the women) would be a terrible idea but that's what we aim for in every other workplace. Only snag is as we become increasingly enlightened both culturally and scientifically about what constitutes gender it gets harder to be so clear cut and defined. If you are going to segregate one subset of the population and give them their own competition to ensure their ability to have success there has to be some arbiter of inclusion. I'm just incredibly glad it's not me having to make that policy. But as I said before, pressure from the outside by those not sufficiently scientifically/medically qualified to identify how that that 'rule' is generated but with the ability to appreciate the individual consequence and desire that it is done with kindness and empathy is important. I got close enough to elite level sport to appreciate that kindness and empathy are in pretty short supply as character traits amongst the people that tend to float to the top (both competitors, coaches and administrators) and imo this where the problems will come.
Not really.
Yes, really. When I used to run as a teen some of my female team mates were preparing for the commonwealth games and the olympics. You only have to look at the fact that Team GB had a 17 year old woman on the athletics track at Paris, she was prepping for that for years. Many sports are for the young. While there are stories of olympians getting into their sporting career later in life, most are spotted and applying themselves when they are teens. And then there's BMX...
But again, same point... it's not just about people who do make it to the olympics, the IOC change will effect what happens in many sports at many levels. The spread of this kind of testing (which isn't testing specifically for unfair advantages or increased risk, but solely for genetic markers) will happen. You're advocating testing earlier, to be "kinder". That's exactly the kind of thing that will result in more people being tested. For those that do eventually make it to the Olympics, you're right that finding out then is too late... but for all those who don't make it (and most do not) they will also be drawn into a testing programme that could mark them out as "not women" for the bigots of this world to target.
I've no answers here, I just don't want perceived fairness in elite sport to result in a worse society for people who don't fit the norm. And I fear that will be the result of this IOC ruling for the LA olympics, happening with the backdrop of all the political changes happening in the USA.
true....
But this is the actual problem....
that could mark them out as "not women" for the bigots of this world to target.
At the outset a number of posts up I said that, given it was happening, what was the kindest way to implement it. If you can get your head around a scenario where you can't just say 'screening is bad' - what would be your solution to the kindest way to implement it?
There is no kinder way to implement it. Either more woman and girls are tested than need to be, so more people suffer. Or athletes find out later. One is cruel to more people. The other is more cruel to fewer people. You pick.
No, you pick! That's the point of the question.
Edit to add ...
We can't sit on the outside and criticise the difficult decisions others have to make, if we can't be brave enough to say what decision we'd make in their shoes.
To that end....if you are adamant screening is a bad decision, how would your policy play out?
So, I can't pick not using SRY testing? And I'm minimising harm in general? As it's only the IOC enforcing it for now, then only test the athletes they have direct say over. Don't make anyone else take the test beyond the ICO rules. If you want to compete at the olympics, you have to follow their rules.
in every other walk of life we have being trying to knock down barriers and break through glass ceiling and where at all possible treat everyone of every gender equally. No longer careers only men could apply for, voting, applying for mortgages, and discrimination laws
Which is the wider issue in the debate. We've spent 50+ years working towards towards the above, to the benefit of everyone.
However, recently there seems to be a very vocal minority wanting to separate everybody back into 2 groups.
I think we need to get some perspective in this debate. There were 3500 athletes at the last Winter Olympics, and 10,500 at the Paris summer Olympics. Assuming there are no athletes who compete at both thats a total of 14,000 people out of a global population of 8,100,000,000. Assuming a 50/50 split male and female then we are looking at 7,000 out of 4,050,000,000 people or 1.73e-4% of the population. Or in other words a spectacularly small percentage of the population. Even if you assume that you tested 100 people for every athlete that was actually good enough to compete at the Olympics you are still at 0.01% which is a hardly mass screening.
So I guess ultimately do you want to level the playing field for 4,050,000,000 people or those few born with a very rare condition?
I've no answers here, I just don't want perceived fairness in elite sport to result in a worse society for people who don't fit the norm.
That's the dilemma. Not "fitting the norm" whether through having genetic conditions or being trans can come with sufficient problems that adding disqualification from elite women's sport might seem relatively trivial.
And anyway women's sport has generally been regarded as not really that big a deal, so what does it matter if a handful of competitors who have male genetic advantage are included for the sake of kindness, also sparing the indignities of testing?
At which point you'd probably want to hear from women, elite athletes or otherwise. Failing to tick any of these boxes I'll spare you my further deep thoughts...
So, I can't pick not using SRY testing? And I'm minimising harm in general? As it's only the IOC enforcing it for now, then only test the athletes they have direct say over. Don't make anyone else take the test beyond the ICO rules. If you want to compete at the olympics, you have to follow their rules.
I can see the logic in that - but I think Convert's point is - if you are an olympic hopeful perhaps expecting to go to your first olympics at ~20, you are probably joining an olympic development programme (all the olympic sports have them) at 15/16. They usually have another tier which feeds the development programme too. If you are going to be rejected from the Olympics is it better to find that out a few months before the games or actually to know when you would be entering the olympic development programme?
Now you are quite right to say, when do you stop - if the talent programme for the next tier down is very focussed on feeding the olympic programme why not test there? in some sports/disciplines almost the whole of the serious youth side of the competition seems to be directed at finding the next olympians (we can debate if that is healthy, but it is reality) in which case when do you test them?
I can see your point too - there are some toxic clubs / coaches where their desire to be linked to an olympic medalist (perhaps to compensate for their own less successful time) would mean that some might be tempted to do this even earlier when they first spot someone who looks like a future star.
You put that more eloquently than me.
My overriding point is that from my experience of those involved in elite sport, decision making will be driven by efficiency, not kindness. Elite sport is pretty ruthless after all and for the vast vast majority of young athletes who engage with it their last contact with it is being rejected and discarded. And there are plenty of sad stories about how that effected future lives regardless of the reason already.
But this feels like an issue so profound to the rest of these young people's lives that kindness in the way it is applied and the aftermath (however you make a judgment call, SYR screening or otherwise) should be the overriding emphasis. How do you engineer in kindness to a protocol most probably executed by people without a lot of it baked into their character traits. That could be about making judgment calls for when best to 'judge', it could be about mandated support for those impacted. It could be about working to change societal preconceptions at large to educate the bigots.
Thinking about this today, words like fairness and equality and inclusion go round and around in your head. But how about kindness?
Well, if we wanted to make the Olympics kinder, then why even have winners in the first place? Think about all those poor souls who’ve trained for years only to end up failing at the final hurdle - winning and losing is just so binary, we should just give everyone a gold medal for participation.
Maybe we should scrap the Olympics. It seems to be a nationalist flag waving exercise.
A woman is someone who feels like a woman, birthing people, trans women are women, men who menstruate, born in the wrong body, all of it is nonsense.
The tide has started to turn on this mad ideology, hopefully it won’t be long before people start to face consequences for the irreparable harm done to vulnerable people in the name of kindness and tolerance. Doctors who have butchered children should go to prison over this.
Or alternatively,
People exist who don't fit your Edwardian world view, whether you like it or not.
You only have to look at the fact that Team GB had a 17 year old woman on the athletics track at Paris, she was prepping for that for years.
I think if it were me and I had a daughter who was looking like she might become an Olympic-grade athlete, I'd want to use those years to voluntarily make sure that she was going to pass any screening tests sooner rather than later. Regardless of how fair those tests may or may not be.
Maybe we should scrap the Olympics. It seems to be a nationalist flag waving exercise.
I know it's "just sport", but every four years I find this team genuinely moving:
https://www.olympics.com/ioc/refugee-olympic-team
Maybe we should scrap the Olympics. It seems to be a nationalist flag waving exercise.Are you mixing nationalist flag waving and patriotism? they can be entirely different and I'd say the olympics is a pretty good example of that. One of the arguments FOR the IOC/Olympics is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting - its an opportunity for athletes from every country in the world to get together. Its a chance for spectators (on TV or in person) to see people from countries they likely would never visit. In general when people from different countries and cultures mix its leads to greater harmony not nationalism.
Not quite sure I understand gorfassterstipes' contribution - is it so clever it's gone over my head?
Whatever, another of the positives of the Olympics is the ethnic diversity of team GB and the clear pride of the non-white GB medal winners succeeding for their nation. I suspect it leaves some of our reform voting most bigoted flag shagging slow witted brethren a little confused...and I hope a touch more educated.
I'm a bit mixed about the wrapping yourself in the flag business, especially if you are the fastest or 2nd fastest looser rather than the actual winner, but that's a different issue I guess.
I've got to confess I mostly watch the Olympics as a passive observer of elite human performance rather than a supporter/fan or any particular competitor regardless of nationality unless I know something of their backstory or particularly like their racing style/approach etc. For example David Rudisha was a beautiful athlete to watch running and how he raced and I watched urging him on regardless of if there was a GB athlete racing too.
Not quite sure I understand gorfassterstipes' contribute - is it so clever it's gone over my head?
((((No))))
The British Olympic team is a Nationalist flag waving exercise, based on targets and best chances for medals. Funding is distributed accordingly and lesser sports have to pay for themselves.
This is perhaps a long way away from the Olympic ideal of everyone trying their best and more an effort aimed at getting as many British flags on the podiums as possible - no flags - no money.
The lack of inclusion for “others” reflects this mentality.
<patronising mode> ON
Whatever, another of the positives of the Olympics is the ethnic diversity of team GB and the clear pride of the non-white GB medal winners succeeding for their nation.
<patronising mode> OFF
<patronising mode> ON
Explain.
Personally I believe that there is a significant underbelly of British society that are stupid and bigoted enough to believe that people who don't look like them can't possibly be properly British or proud of Britain and need it demonstrating to them in a paint-by-numbers style. An ethically and culturally diverse collection of athletes representing the nation with positivity 'might' get through to their stupid, small life lived minds. They might for example find themselves cheering on Mo Farah, who in every other walk of life they would have a serious issues with and have a penny drop moment.
It was a great and proud moment on super saturday 2012 when one after the other, a muslim son of an immigrant, a mixed race girl from Sheffield, and then a white guy all won gold for GB and were all cheered just the same.
Jeez, one of them was even ginger and we still loved him 😉
Personally I believe that there is a significant underbelly of British society that are stupid and bigoted enough to believe that people who don't look like them can't possibly be properly British or proud of Britain and need it demonstrating to them in a paint-by-numbers style. An ethically and culturally diverse collection of athletes representing the nation with positivity 'might' get through to their stupid, small life lived minds. They might for example find themselves cheering on Mo Farah, who in every other walk of life they would have a serious issues with and have a penny drop moment.
bigoted /bĭg′ə-tĭd/: “Blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others”
pot and kettle, eh?
Yes, we must tolerate bigots. It’s a paradox, but also true. Hug a bigot today.
[ Warning, hug might not be accepted if you’re “one of them”. ]
pot and kettle, eh?
Ouch!
Then.......I looked at your posting history. And you know what, I'll wear that as a badge of honour.
I'll end up on the right side of history and your ilk will be judged as that unfortunate phase we went through then tried really hard to forget. A bit like syphilis.
After my post Saturday I was accused of being the bigot too, convert, I wouldn't take it to heart. By the dictionary, I guess they're right but 'bigot' in common usage tends to err to the racist, homophobic, etc. rather than the woke (on which I direct the reader to Steve Albini's definition). But I'm no Suzie Dent, and this isn't dictionary corner.
I suspect my accuser might have responded to my first paragraph and maybe not read on, because I'm very tolerant of other views on this topic. My anger is not aimed at those that think that an exclusion policy in Olympic or 'pointy end' sport is justified; in fact I hope I made it clear that I support the IOC stance there if their intent is fairness, but I also am clear that TO ME inclusivity is more important. Of course I'd say that. I don't hate anyone for having a different view on fairness in sport, just don't let it be the thin end of the wedge.
I also accept that others may have very homophobic or transphobic broader views, and defend their right to hold them, just as I defend my right to think they are ****s. Yes, I do despise people who make comments like
the ability of ‘unaltered’ males to wake up one morning and declare themselves female on a whim
or
A woman is someone who feels like a woman, birthing people, trans women are women, men who menstruate, born in the wrong body, all of it is nonsense.
The tide has started to turn on this mad ideology, hopefully it won’t be long before people start to face consequences for the irreparable harm done to vulnerable people in the name of kindness and tolerance. Doctors who have butchered children should go to prison over this.
I have been called a child abuser. I have been physically threatened, as has my son. Rather than ruining a life, I'm in no doubt I've saved one, I'm pretty certain he wouldn't be here now if we hadn't supported him, and continue to support him. Suicidal thoughts and attempts in the trans community are about 5x higher than among the population as whole. This isn't an easy choice and the 'on a whim' is grossly offensive to me.
I was asked in another thread if I wished harm on 'the bigots' I don't know, I'm not a violent person. I wish they didn't have those views, or didn't exist at all, and that's a vaguely uncomfortable truth to me internally because it goes against my ideals of tolerance. Would I actively do harm though - I'm in no doubt that if it was an armed conflict and someone was shooting at my son, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot back at them. But while they may actively wish or threaten harm to him, to deny his existence and rights as a person, they're doing it in words and gestures, so it just warrants words and gestures back.
Tide turning - they might kid themselves so, and it might undoubtedly be ebbing a bit recently but the tide is going against them. In the end love conquers hate.
Thank you @theotherjonv you put your viewpoint, from lived experience very eloquently. It puts into words my feelings, I struggle with these type of discussions as I cannot understand the level of hate directed at other human beings just for their differences, it makes me angry!
I hope that you’re correct that the tide is turning, I certainly try and use love instead of hate as a first viewpoint.