Caster Semenya

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I think Caster Semenya is a female.

It's clear that there are different senses in which the word female can be used. I'n the biological sense at least - which is the one most relevant to sport - she almost certainly isn't entirely female.

Based on what? And against what criteria.

Well clearly based on the relevant (to the event) biological differences between male and female - it's not just you are too fast it's that you possess the biological advantages that we categorise as male.

How else do you distinguish between male and female for the purposes of sport?

DeVlaeminck

Shirley Basso wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Whether she is female or not isn't up for debate as far as i'm aware.

Gender isn't defined by hormone levels, so if they are a certain gender at birth then they should compete against each other, transgender should have a separate classifications as they are "different".

They are suggesting she should take drugs to lower her testosterone levels, this is just madness! What if you are just below the limit - could you take drugs to get to this arbitrary level?!

^ this

In which case my question to Chris would also be to you.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I think Caster Semenya is a female.

It's clear that there are different senses in which the word female can be used. I'n the biological sense at least - which is the one most relevant to sport - she almost certainly isn't entirely female.

Based on what? And against what criteria.

Well clearly based on the relevant (to the event) biological differences between male and female - it's not just you are too fast it's that you possess the biological advantages that we categorise as male.

How else do you distinguish between male and female for the purposes of sport?

No, be specific. What biological differences and how are these specifically male or female? I know on average men are stronger, but you seem to be suggesting that a person should be considered male if they are 'too' strong to be classed as female. Firstly gender is not determined by athletic ability and secondly, even if it was how do you set the threshold?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Shirley Basso wrote:

I think Caster Semenya is a female.

It's clear that there are different senses in which the word female can be used. I'n the biological sense at least - which is the one most relevant to sport - she almost certainly isn't entirely female.

Based on what? And against what criteria.

Well clearly based on the relevant (to the event) biological differences between male and female - it's not just you are too fast it's that you possess the biological advantages that we categorise as male.

How else do you distinguish between male and female for the purposes of sport?

No, be specific. What biological differences and how are these specifically male or female? I know on average men are stronger, but you seem to be suggesting that a person should be considered male if they are 'too' strong to be classed as female. Firstly gender is not determined by athletic ability and secondly, even if it was how do you set the threshold?

No I specifically said it's not just because someone is too strong, fast or whatever so you are misrepresenting what I wrote. It's the mechanism by which the ability is conferred. So if a woman can run 100 metres in 8.8 seconds fine, she isn't "too fast", if she can do 8.8 because she has explosive power of a man fine, but if she has that explosive power because she produced male levels of testosterone and we consider that to be a defining feature of being male relevant to the event then not fine.

Look for me there are 3 options, you either do away with women's sports, you make it open to anyone if they declare themselves female OR you set up some biological criteria by which you define female for the purposes of the sport.

So again your criticisms that somehow I'm saying gender is set by athletic ability at some threshold, so if you run under 10 seconds you are male, are not addressing the argument I made.

rjsterry

I had a feeling I'd misunderstood, hence spelling it out. I see two problems: a given level of testosterone does not produce a predictable improvement in performance, and even supposing that were the case, who determines the threshold? Hormone levels change over time so you end up with a scenario of female athletes being tested to see if they are 'still women'. "Oh sorry, I'm afraid you've just tipped over the threshold, we're going to have to switch you to the men's race." Surely you can see that that is not a solution.

DeVlaeminck

Well what else do you do - not everyone accepts there should be a biological hurdle here - some trans activists and like minded people would have anyone who self identifies as female able to compete.

However for me the logic behind women's sport is due to biological differences so it makes sense that the qualification if you like is on biological grounds. I don't claim expertise or inside knowledge of Semenya's condition but what they've come up with doesn't seem unreasonable given the knowledge I've got.

I recognise it's difficult because what we consider female is to an extent a social construct and the bottom line is we all have unique biology and we are trying to impose either or categories on something that isn't either or.

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

I think the reality is that she is neither male or female, but has an intersex state of which there are many. This almost certainly confers he with a significant biological advantage in her chosen discipline compared with 'normal' females. I think this is different from comparing her with Usain Bolt, who simply has very long legs which he is able to move quickly.
I don't know what the answer is, but if she calls herself female and she is allowed to compete as a female, then taking it to its logical conclusion why can't any man do the same.

rick_chasey

xdoc wrote:

I think the reality is that she is neither male or female, but has an intersex state of which there are many. This almost certainly confers he with a significant biological advantage in her chosen discipline compared with 'normal' females. I think this is different from comparing her with Usain Bolt, who simply has very long legs which he is able to move quickly.
I don't know what the answer is, but if she calls herself female and she is allowed to compete as a female, then taking it to its logical conclusion why can't any man do the same.

There already are strict physical criteria you need to meet (that don’t include hormones) to be considered a female athlete and Semenya has been subject to fairly invasive tests in order to establish this.

She met the criteria.

She’s been caught up in the culture wars around gender and athletes griping they can’t beat her.

earthvspace4XTuUWcX

I'm curious as to what those criteria are.
If you have an athlete with external female genitalia but they have XY chromosomes and no ovaries, would they be classified as female or male for instance.

rick_chasey

xdoc wrote:

I'm curious as to what those criteria are.
If you have an athlete with external female genitalia but they have XY chromosomes and no ovaries, would they be classified as female or male for instance.

Go knock yourself out. There’s a wiki page as a starter for 10.

chris_bass

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Whether she is female or not isn't up for debate as far as i'm aware.

Gender isn't defined by hormone levels, so if they are a certain gender at birth then they should compete against each other, transgender should have a separate classifications as they are "different".

They are suggesting she should take drugs to lower her testosterone levels, this is just madness! What if you are just below the limit - could you take drugs to get to this arbitrary level?!

For you how is female defined? We have many who would argue that male or female is a choice. Clearly you don't agree with that because you talk about a gender at birth. The question then is what or maybe who determines if a baby is male or female?

Assuming you don't think it's the midwife but rather some biological characteristic why can't hormones or the potential to develop levels of hormones in the future be part of that determining factor?

Physical and mental gender is different.

I'd go with chromosomes as a first check then if this is ambiguous (some XY can have both male and female genitalia) then go with how they lived their life to a certain age.

Transgender should be a special case and have their own classifications.

That's just my take on it.