The fascinating if not troubling story of Caster Semenya is in the news again:

BBC – Caster Semeneya is Female

It’s fascinating because it throws into sharp relief the notion that all elite level sporting achievement is down to genetic advantage (when comparing those competing at that level with those that aren’t), and therefore begs the question above, at what point does a genetic advantage become unfair if at all? Semenya clearly enjoys an advantage, perhaps like the Williams sisters do, so shouldn’t that be something we celebrate like we do any time the stronger person wins in competition?

It’s troubling because one can only imagine the turmoil that an athelete must go through having to prove their gender, even though it is clearly an important question to ask. I’m not sure we can accept someone’s word for it but introducing a test for testosterone levels would be worrying and divisive.

When the governing body decide so.

Can it be an unfair advantage if its purely through genetics?

F1 has at least tried to manage this through spending caps. Many other sports give rich (mostly white/western) nations an advantage when results are heavily influenced by developments in equipment.

When your second.

Can it be an unfair advantage if its purely through genetics?

Well that’s the point that seems to be being debated. The IAAF seem to want to rule that that is the case whereas the RSA government and the ASA say otherwise.

If you decide that someone has a genetic advantage, i.e. an unusually high testosterone level in an otherwise ‘female’ athelete, where does that leave someone like say Chris Froome, with an unusually high hematacrit count?

The moment you start to analyse why someone has an advantage you begin to realise that all elite level atheletes are genetically gifted compared to everyone else. Either you give up on the idea of ‘elite’ as being important in sporting competition or else you accept that people like Semenya are always going to dominate their arena.

Personally I’m with Semenya on this – let her run, let her win.

Well…

The demonstrable advantage that has up until now been deemed an unfair advantage, is that which males, who are generally stronger, have over females in sports where strength plays a major role. So, males and females have competed separately.

(I know this supposition opens other worm-cans, but let’s accept it for now)

The issue here (as I understand it) is defining ‘male’ and ‘female’, because it’s increasingly clear that gender, and I’m just talking ‘physical’ gender here, not what someone may ‘identify’ as (again another worm-can for another discussion), is not as binary as was once thought. The presence or not of dangly-bits is no longer a definitive measure.

So,

So,

Exactly. So really, we need to open that can of worms otherwise we aren’t going to solve the conundrum.

Eloquently put by the way Simon. I like your summation.

An almost impossible one to answer.

I mean, I feel genetically disadvantaged from having a career in Pro Basketball on account of not being 7 foot tall, and they should ban these genetic freaks from competing 😉

Really interesting case, no idea what the “correct” outcome would be.

…introducing a test for testosterone levels would be worrying and divisive.

They’ve already introduced the test and the IAAF are requiring female athletes with elevated levels to medically reduce their testosterone if they want to compete as women.

The simple answer is that as long as you are not breaking the regulations of the sport, a “demonstrable advantage” is not an unfair advantage. I think the root of the current problem is that the traditional regulatory classification of “male” and “female” is too simplistic, given our modern understanding of the wide spectrum that gender really covers. There are lots of complex combinations of chromosomal structures and physical characteristics that can result in many different intersex conditions.

We use male and female as a simple classification for creating classes of competition, because these categories divide the majority of the population into groups with distinctly different levels of performance. However, that’s a very broad generalisation that doesn’t hold true for everyone (even if you are not considering intersex individuals).

Under the currrent rules, I think that if Semenya is officially classified as a woman, she should be allowed to compete in that category as she is, and it is wrong to force her to artificially limit her natural performance through artificial medical intervention.

There’s a further question about whether the current regulations are actually fit for purpose, given our deeper understanding of human physiology, and whether there should be different ways of grouping “similar” competitors. Masters sport uses multiple age bands. Paralympic sport has multiple classifications based on combinations of different characteristics (which introduces its own problems). You could conceivably classify athletes without disabilities in a similar way, using characteristics such as testosterone level. That would be a very complicated and thorny project, however.

Misleading headline misquote tastic 😀

A problem which is easily solved by getting rid of women’s sport and having all human beings competing on a level playing field.

Clearly I’m not being serious, but ultimately if we accept that these is a continuum rather than two distinct groups that is the only answer which won’t be unfair to some.

What is it the makes her female though? I guess we don’t know her biology as a certainty, but how many of these traits can someone have and still be considered female for sporting purposes?

XY chromosomes
Testes
No ovaries/uterus
Male levels of testosterone

As far as I understand it, what makes DSD people veer away from the above pointers of their sex is high/low levels of hormones. So why do hormones trump the four (more obvious – in my opinion) ways of determining which category they should be competing in sport?

Once you consult this handy little chart, it’s clear that this athlete is more GI Joe than Barbie so must be a man.

This is worth a read, should be full text public access

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5643412/

The prevalence of DSD in eleite female athletes is markedly higher than the general population – genetic selection in action. Controversy has raged on the threshold for testosterone since it was introduced. It’s based on flawed inference in the tail of distributions, coupled with a dogmatic belief in cause and effect that will always be subject to variability.

I’m a big semeneya fan. By contrast, I was in the same hotel as the England Rugby team yesterday. My 70 kilos 179 frame looks rather modest compared to Courteney Lawes! It’s not just DSD.

I’m just talking ‘physical’ gender here

The word is SEX

The prevalence of DSD in eleite female athletes is markedly higher than the general population

The incidence of myoglobin deficiency in elite male atheletes competing in strength based events is also markedly higher; in fact i read that it was universal.

When you start to spend some time thinking about it, the heroism in success at elite level sport starts to fade a little. You begin to realise that it doesn’t look massively different to eugenics.

This is an interesting (if long read)

Humiliating indeed

“Though those claims were never substantiated, in 1966 international sports officials decided they couldn’t trust individual nations to certify femininity, and instead implemented a mandatory genital check of every woman competing at international games. In some cases, this involved what came to be called the “nude parade,” as each woman appeared, underpants down, before a panel of doctors; in others, it involved women’s lying on their backs and pulling their knees to their chest for closer inspection.”

Is there a higher prevalence of top tennis players who are left handed over the general population?

Have we been here before?

Apparently not but I suspect you already knew that?

The Sports Gene was an interesting read; it argues that most sports are dominated by people with a particular physical advantage related to that sport.

My post above includes a link to a New York Article titled ‘The Humiliating Practice of Sex-Testing Female Athletes’

Its just showing a picture (with no-text) so not obvious it’s a link. Attempt at displaying just a textual hyperlink below

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/magazine/the-humiliating-practice-of-sex-testing-female-athletes.html

all elite level sporting achievement is down to genetic advantage

You have to have suitable genes plus train and practice like a lunatic. Having good genes and sitting on the sofa doesn’t work.

You have to have suitable genes plus train and practice like a lunatic. Having good genes and sitting on the sofa doesn’t work.

The ‘hard work beats talent if talent doesn’t work hard’ mantra; sure, that is true. The interesting part though is that you can do something about working hard, you can’t alter your genes.

Our society has grown up in a way that raises the good fortune of genetics to a heroic level. We (mostly) only celebrate the sporting heroes blessed by eugenics; we don’t collectively celebrate the weekend warriors.

I spent a few years racing time trials and got to know a few people on that circuit. The person who really stood out for me – who really inspired me to try harder – was the forty something woman who having had no previous background in sporting endevours, had four years earlier decided she was going to get on a bike and see what she could do. She was truly inspirational. Her times never caused anyone to take a second look but just talking to her would inspire me.

Let men and women compete against each other. That’ll sort it.

This is all about women who are man-like, after all.

A problem which is easily solved by getting rid of women’s sport and having all human beings competing on a level playing field.

aracer – sod off!
If I want to watch Kornicova playing tennis, Bengtsson pole vaulting, Chicherova high jumping, Klishina long jumping, Lalova sprinting, Broerson doing heptathlon, Rodic in triple jump – no way do I want to be seeing the hairy arsed males competing against them.
The beauty of the sports being separated gives us the opportunity to sit with a beer and perve marvel at the outstanding ability of those taking part……
The Ladies can have the Wimbledon mens final.

.

Nice article in the Sunday Times yesterday by Navratilova. She shares my view that a lifetime of testosterone and male development confers an unfair advantage once one declares as female, testosterone suppressents notwithstanding. She also got into debate, if thats the right word (well abuse really), with the trans winner of the US masters track, in which the third placed rider complained of unfairness. It’s behind a paywall, but been widely reported. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/martina-navratilova-blasts-cheating-transgender-women-in-sport-8fmjbnh99

Re-reported here https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments

By contrast, on the back page of the Sports section, David Walsh hopes Caster loses her case. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/walsh-caster-semenya-2p377rbvd

The notion of a fair genetic playing field is spurious. See basketball, for example, with higher levels of HGH during growth, so I just don’t agree with his position. Caster has done nothing wrong but is genetically advantaged. Lucky her (for various values of luck). Just as weighlifters and basketball players have doe nothing wrong but have an advantage. I’d rather like Greg Lempond’s VO2 max as well, or CHarlie’s higher haematocrit. That’s genetics. That’s life.

The notion of a fair genetic playing field is spurious.

Unless you have different categories it is, yes. You could categorise in similar way to paralympics, a race for those with testosterone between n and n, a race for those with VO2 max between n and n, basketball for those between Ncm and Ncm height etc,.

Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap…

with testosterone between n and n, a race for those with VO2 max between n and n, basketball for those between Ncm and Ncm height etc,.

Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap

A bit like golf?

I was also going to post a link here about Navratilova’s comments. Quite how people think she is in the wrong, I don’t know….

Be fairer but may just make it all a bit crap…

There are only about 20,000 genes in the human genome, but it’s an n-factorial problem. I could be Olympic champion in my genetic make-up – I have no identical twin after all 😉 One of the fundamental truths I was taught as a child is “Life’s not fair”. It’s a tough lesson, but it is true. Wanting it to be fair consumes a lot of people’s energy. I prefer to marvel at those genetically gifted and try to be the best my limited VO2 max can be. At 179cm I was never going to be a basketball player of any note after all.

The mechanistic link between current testosterone levels and performance is actually surprisingly poor. The link between testosterone levels as a teenager and adult muscle mass across genders, is of course very well established.

aracer – sod off!
If I want to watch Kornicova playing tennis, Bengtsson pole vaulting, Chicherova high jumping, Klishina long jumping, Lalova sprinting, Broerson doing heptathlon, Rodic in triple jump – no way do I want to be seeing the hairy arsed males competing against them.

I’m thinking you might have missed my point 😂

The question is, just how hairy arsed women would you like to watch?

They’re way ahead of you, aracer!

Wimbledon Ditches Rules In Bid To Keep Munters Off Centre Court

Fun fact: Princess Anne was the only female athlete at the Olympics she competed in not to be tested for her sex.

I’ve read far to much on this case and the fact is that someone will not be happy whatever the outcome. I have huge sympathy with Semenya as she is at the centre of this, but there is a much bigger game at play here around women’s sport in general.

The issue is that women’s sport needs a definition of “female”, and any definition will likely handicap some of the current participants. Either you risk alienated the majority of the female populous by removing most (all?) of the restrictions and so meaning many will simply not be able to complete, or you alienate people like Semenya. Those citing that genetics always carries an advantage make a fair point, the counter of which is that, in effect, the male category is the open one, the female category needs some kind of controls.

It boils down to a simple questions with an astonishingly complex answer “how do you define “female”?

Very much tongue in cheek, Mrs Lunge’s view is that if you can run without a sports bra you’re not female. Semenya doesn’t wear one apparently.

In a world heading towards self-id any definition is moot.

The presence or not of dangly-bits is no longer a definitive measure.

IIRC Semenya (most ironic surname ever, surely?), has testicles?
In my mind at least, that draws a bollock shaped line in the sand right there.

We have Paralympics, we have Olympics for male and female competitors – how about introducing a Trans-Olympics or Inter-Olympics?, for those who don’t relate their sexuality as binary, or perhaps, you know, have balls and no womb or ovaries but want to be female. Like Caster.

is that if you can run without a sports bra you’re not female

What about men who need a sports bra when they run?, have I been competing in the wrong classification all this time??

^^^ Loving The Daily Mash article. On the ball(s) as always.

I think the debate is only going to rage on and the more sports scientists can test for particular genes, hormone levels or identifiers, the more specialised people are going to become for certain sporting roles. They will be to identify earlier and earlier in a childs life what genetic advantage they will have, no doubt at 10 years of age soon, they will be able to say whether a child will be a natural prop-forward, a Tour winning cyclist, a gymnast or basketball player.

This of course then becomes open to abuse, can you imagine those countries that have previously been excused of using PED’s on a state sanctioned level on athletes or who have been abusive to young gymnasts/ ballet dancers / tennis players, being able to genetically manipulate those children that already have an aptitude for a particular sport, how do you start to test for that?