Well, she may have been raised as a woman, but is it really fair for other women to compete against her if she’s hormonally a man? Other women may have lost their ovaries, but if they have testes in their place, doesn’t that make them more of a man than a woman? Obviously her muscles are responding to the higher T levels.
This is a real tough situation and was mishandled. However, Like I said, it’s up to each athletic organization to set their rules of competition. If they want to screen based on genetic testing and exclude based on those results, that’s their prerogative. I’m just saying that I can see why they’d move to prohibit her from competition.
why should they ban Semenya if her t levels are similar to those of top women without testes.
Even with testes she produces only the same amount as them?
[quote]decimation wrote:
why should they ban Semenya if her t levels are similar to those of top women without testes.
Even with testes she produces only the same amount as them? [/quote]
I hope this question isn’t serious. If it is, it’s quite simple, she has the reproductive organs of a male. Therefore, she is not of the female sex. This isn’t about gender, which some people in the lay public are making this about. Either way, if she has the testes removed she should be able to compete again against females. Likewise, as somebody stated, not sure 100% on the correctness, but if a male has the sex surgery to become female, that person can compete against women as well. However, I believe the process is quite rigorous, as the previous poster mentioned.
[quote]ds1973 wrote:
Well, she may have been raised as a woman, but is it really fair for other women to compete against her if she’s hormonally a man? Other women may have lost their ovaries, but if they have testes in their place, doesn’t that make them more of a man than a woman? Obviously her muscles are responding to the higher T levels.
This is a real tough situation and was mishandled. However, Like I said, it’s up to each athletic organization to set their rules of competition. If they want to screen based on genetic testing and exclude based on those results, that’s their prerogative. I’m just saying that I can see why they’d move to prohibit her from competition.
[/quote]
It isn’t real tough at all. They either treat her like the woman she was raised to be or they change the entire Olympics and start allowing people to compete based completely on their hormone levels so that we can be sure all playing fields are equal.
Have two guys, one with low test and the other with high test?? Well, even if they are both natural we can’t let that happen!! We must ALL be equal and that’s just not fair to low test people. So let’s kick the high test dude out so he can only compete with other high test guys.
Otherwise, say “hello” to really fucking stupid self righteous hypocrisy.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Have two guys, one with low test and the other with high test?? Well, even if they are both natural we can’t let that happen!! We must ALL be equal and that’s just not fair to low test people. So let’s kick the high test dude out so he can only compete with other high test guys.
Otherwise, say “hello” to really fucking stupid self righteous hypocrisy.[/quote]
That’s exactly it, the point of competition is to excel with what you were given. You can’t be blamed for being genetically superior to an opponent.
I spoke to a friend who is a pediatric endocrinologist and he says that people who have internal testes usually have them removed due to health reasons, they usually turn cancerous due to abdominal heat. She probably has partial Androgen insensitivity syndrome and XY chromosome with the defect on the X chromosome.
That’s exactly it, the point of competition is to excel with what you were given. You can’t be blamed for being genetically superior to an opponent. [/quote]
Did you watch that program today just before the F1? Disabled athletes are campaigning to have the Para Olympics in 2012 run at the same time as the Olympics in London on the grounds of deserving to be bestowed dignity and equality.
Caster would have been better off if she had been born missing a leg.
It’s ok to be less then the “normals” but it is not ok to be more.
Being born genetically at a disadvantage warrants compassion and understanding.
Being born genetically at an advantage brings condemnation.
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
And they actually publicize it? not considering the psychological trauma this person is facing with this news…people are so fucking low
the chance to sell a story, i fucking hate money…more than money, i hate people who love it[/quote]
Welcome to hollywood, and every single popular “news” network.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Have two guys, one with low test and the other with high test?? Well, even if they are both natural we can’t let that happen!! We must ALL be equal and that’s just not fair to low test people. So let’s kick the high test dude out so he can only compete with other high test guys.
[/quote]
Professor X, I think you’re taking this a bit out of context. I don’t see a problem with the natural variation in test between various men. There is bound to be natural variation in T levels within the male population. Same within women. I’m not advocating that natural variation should be equalized. My point is that with the testes, and no ovaries, and the fact that her body is responsive to the testosterone, Semenya is more man than woman.
I did some more searching though, because part of me kind of agrees that there’s an injustice here. However, I believe it’s a bit more complicated of an issue than “oh just let her run”. This is an interesting article and goes through the “logic” of why she’s more male than female and how she would be able to compete after removing the testes:
[quote]In fact, the section below is taken directly from the IAAF policy document on gender verification (2006):
6. Conditions that should be allowed:
(a) Those conditions that accord no advantage over other females:
Androgen insensitivity syndrome (Complete or almost complete - previously called testicular feminization);
Gonadal dysgenesis (gonads should be removed surgically to avoid
malignancy);
Turnerâ??s syndrome.
So, as you can see, someone with AIS is still able to compete, which explains why those 7 women in Atlanta were cleared. The issue, and this is where it gets complex, is around what “complete” means.
In my opinion (which is subject to biases, I confess), I cannot see that Semenya has complete AIS (assuming it’s AIS, that is - it may be something else). She displays too many characterisitics that would only be found in someone who DID respond to testosterone, like body fat distribution, skeletal structure, deepening of the voice, hirsutism. So now the issue is whether she has an advantage, and that gets grey… [/quote]
With regard to sex change competitors, and he mentions the medical necessity of removing the testes.
[quote]The issue of what the IAAF should do regarding Semenya’s participation in sport may very well be completely irrelevant. That’s because, if the reports are true, and she has internal testes, then SHE would almost certainly have to seek medical treatment.
… this situation has by now become a HEALTH issue first, and a performance one second. If Semenya has surgery, then the source of the potential advantage - the testes and the testosterone - will no longer be present and she can compete without any question (obviously, provided the issue is cleared up, as for the IAAF policy on sex reassignment). The necessary medical intervention would eliminate any debate over whether she has complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome or a partial AIS, and how much the testosterone might be helping her. [/quote]
I believe this guy is making a lot of sense. He’s looked at the rules set down by the IAAF, and has made some educated guesses on her condition and what could happen going forward.
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem is the South African sports authorities serving as enablers.
Even at this point they are threatening “world war” over this athlete of theirs being disqualified.
However, if they were operating with intellectual and moral integrity, rather than nationalism or other issues, it is obvious that questions should have been raised long ago about whether this athlete had hormone levels within the accepted range for female athletes, and on failing that test, if the athlete wanted to pursue a challenge, a chromosome test could have then been done.
Sorry, having:
Balls (whether descended or not)
Male levels of testosterone, and
XY chromosomes
does not make for being female. Never has and never will, except in that there will always be people who will twist words to suit what they want.
What we have here in terms of fact is a man with no dick, not a woman with no ovaries. And not having a dick isn’t sufficient to count as being female.
As for the argument of being “raised as a female,” some mothers dress their little boys up like girls. What, that then entitles them to compete as women in sports? Socialization is not the issue, but biology. Ovaries and XX, that’s one thing. Testicles and XY, that’s another.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem is the South African sports authorities serving as enablers.
Even at this point they are threatening “world war” over this athlete of theirs being disqualified.
However, if they were operating with intellectual and moral integrity, rather than nationalism or other issues, it is obvious that questions should have been raised long ago about whether this athlete had hormone levels within the accepted range for female athletes, and on failing that test, if the athlete wanted to pursue a challenge, a chromosome test could have then been done.
Sorry, having:
Balls (whether descended or not)
Male levels of testosterone, and
XY chromosomes
does not make for being female. Never has and never will, except in that there will always be people who will twist words to suit what they want.
What we have here in terms of fact is a man with no dick, not a woman with no ovaries. And not having a dick isn’t sufficient to count as being female.
As for the argument of being “raised as a female,” some mothers dress their little boys up like girls. What, that then entitles them to compete as women in sports? Socialization is not the issue, but biology. Ovaries and XX, that’s one thing. Testicles and XY, that’s another. [/quote]
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
It seems to me that a huge part of the problem is the South African sports authorities serving as enablers.
Even at this point they are threatening “world war” over this athlete of theirs being disqualified.
However, if they were operating with intellectual and moral integrity, rather than nationalism or other issues, it is obvious that questions should have been raised long ago about whether this athlete had hormone levels within the accepted range for female athletes, and on failing that test, if the athlete wanted to pursue a challenge, a chromosome test could have then been done.
Sorry, having:
Balls (whether descended or not)
Male levels of testosterone, and
XY chromosomes
does not make for being female. Never has and never will, except in that there will always be people who will twist words to suit what they want.
What we have here in terms of fact is a man with no dick, not a woman with no ovaries. And not having a dick isn’t sufficient to count as being female.
As for the argument of being “raised as a female,” some mothers dress their little boys up like girls. What, that then entitles them to compete as women in sports? Socialization is not the issue, but biology. Ovaries and XX, that’s one thing. Testicles and XY, that’s another. [/quote]
Socialization is the most important issue. It is what we base all of these notions of what is normal for men and women on in society. Why aren’t we testing men for hypogonadism if they are just a little too good at ice skating?
If you erase the human and social component, you basically insist that we look at a human as if they are a lab experiment. The moment we actually head down that route, we are fucked as a species…at least as far as any discussion of individuality or free will is concerned.
Maybe she should have simply been killed at birth so as not to stress any other humans with the abnormality.
Unless she was raised as a man who is now dressing as a woman just to win at the Olympics, some attempt to realize the true depth of this beyond genetics is in order.
So, a number of people all making a mistake means that the truth really is whatever the mistaken belief was.
Gotcha.
However, many people believe that the truth is what it is, and many people having been wrong about it doesn’t the error correct.
This person is a male who was mistaken for being female.
As for your statements such as “you basically insist that we look at a human as if they are a lab experiment” and “Maybe she should have simply been killed at birth so as to not stress any other humans,” etc are the rhetoric of someone who can find no sound argument and decides instead to grasp at completely ridiculous and baseless statements, such as those, to have anything at all.
Needless to say, no one is saying to treat Semenya as an “experiment” or suggesting that infanticide would have been better. That is just you making things up.
Those are probably your best arguments yet on the matter, but problem is, they are baseless.
It’s long been a known fact that some persons are males that do not develop fully but do have internal testes. If such a person were to the eye and so far as blood tests go very apparently female, then we would have a more complex case of the truth perhaps being cruelly unfair.
In this case, we have someone who should have been suspected by sports authorities long ago of being male. It is willful refusal to deal with the truth – similar to yours above – that resulted in this athlete ever reaching this level of competition in events limited to females.
An attitude which now claims that because of mistakes of others in thinking Semenya female, that therefore, regardless of being biologically male and having the sport advantages thereof, we’ll engage in a little Newspeak and say that female means this new thing of how a person was socialized.
Find me ONE sentence in one sports rule book that says this. If you can’t, then you are wrong.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
So, a number of people all making a mistake means that the truth really is whatever the mistaken belief was.[/quote]
Isn’t that the very definition of “sanity”?
[quote]
Gotcha.
However, many people believe that the truth is what it is, and many people having been wrong about it doesn’t the error correct.
This person is a male who was mistaken for being female.[/quote]
Which means that of no fault of her own, she had advantages that some girls may or may not. That doesn’t change that she was raised as a woman, not a man.
[quote]
As for your statements such as “you basically insist that we look at a human as if they are a lab experiment” and “Maybe she should have simply been killed at birth so as to not stress any other humans,” etc are the rhetoric of someone who can find no sound argument and must grasp at these completely ridiculous and unwarranted statements to have anything at all.[/quote]
The argument is and was that her social status does matter in this discussion. We are not simply talking about a clump of cells but a human being who raised to be female but had male organs inside of her.
[quote]
It’s long been a known fact that some persons are males that do not develop fully but do have internal testes. If such a person were to the eye and so far as blood tests go very apparently female, then we would have a more complex case of the truth perhaps being cruelly unfair.[/quote]
So, you admit that how someone LOOKS has something to do with how this is treated?
[quote]
In this case, we have someone who should have been suspected by sports authorities long ago of being male. It is willful refusal to deal with the truth – similar to yours above – that resulted in this athlete ever reaching this level of competition in events limited to females.[/quote]
The truth is she was raised female. The truth is she is genetically not just female. there is no more truth than that.
[quote]
An attitude which now claims that because of mistakes of others in thinking the person female, that therefore, regardless of being biologically male, we’ll engage in a little Newspeak and say that female means this new thing of how a person was socialized.
Find me ONE sentence in one sports rule book that says this. If you can’t, then you are wrong.[/quote]
Bullshit. All of reality is based on majority thought processes. Taking a shit in public on the floor is wrong. Why? Because society says so. If society suddenly believed taking a shit on the carpet was a sign of respect, it would no longer be a social faux pas. You can’t ignore social relevance as it is the thread we all define ourselves by.
Peculiarly enough, yes, when something looks like a horse, a rabbit, or a male human, or a female human, it’s reasonable to suspect that that is the case.
So if someone enters what looks like a horse into a dog race, yes, it’s reasonable to test to see if this perhaps is a horse, not a dog, before the race.
As for your belief that “all of reality is based on majority thought processes,” you then are not a person that is grounded in reality.
All it takes for you, if you in practice hold to the philosophy you claim above, is for the number of people thinking something, and reality changes. (Supposedly.)
It actually is comical that you would say this in this situation in particular.
At this point, there are far more humans concluding that Semenya is male than female.
So by your own standards of what constitutes “reality” (according to your concept of reality) reality now is that Semenya is male.
End of discussion, so far as I am concerned. Actually even in general there is never a point in discussing factual matters with a person who fundamentally doesn’t believe in objective factual reality, but has fallen into the fantasy of believing that reality is whatever the majority thinks is true. Yeah, you just go on believing that the world was flat until suddenly enough people decided it was, approximately, spherical. Which you’d have to believe, if you were consistent, but you’re probably not. And you go on believing Semenya is female. No fact can convince you because you’ve made plain you care only of the opinions of the people you want to agree with. (Why only those people, rather than what you stated, the majority? Because I doubt you really will change your mind based on what the majority thinks, despite your philosophically-diseased statement " All of reality is based on majority thought processes."
There is no rational discussion on such matters with those thinking as you’ve stated you do on matters such as this.
This whole situation is a really good example of how futile it is to try to make things more fair by introducing more regulation. Things will never be 100% fair, might as well let people do as much as they are willing to do in order to win and let that “level the playing field”.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Peculiarly enough, yes, when something looks like a horse, a rabbit, or a male human, or a female human, it’s reasonable to suspect that that is the case.
So if someone enters what looks like a horse into a dog race, yes, it’s reasonable to test to see if this perhaps is a horse, not a dog, before the race.
As for your belief that “all of reality is based on majority thought processes,” you then are not a person that is grounded in reality.
All it takes for you, if you in practice hold to the philosophy you claim above, is for the number of people thinking something, and reality changes. (Supposedly.)
It actually is comical that you would say this in this situation in particular.
At this point, there are far more humans concluding that Semenya is male than female.
So by your own standards of what constitutes “reality” (according to your concept of reality) reality now is that Semenya is male.
End of discussion, so far as I am concerned. Actually even in general there is never a point in discussing factual matters with a person who fundamentally doesn’t believe in objective factual reality, but has fallen into the fantasy of believing that reality is whatever the majority thinks is true. Yeah, you just go on believing that the world was flat until suddenly enough people decided it was, approximately, spherical. Which you’d have to believe, if you were consistent, but you’re probably not. And you go on believing Semenya is female. No fact can convince you because you’ve made plain you care only of the opinions of the people you want to agree with. (Why only those people, rather than what you stated, the majority? Because I doubt you really will change your mind based on what the majority thinks, despite your philosophically-diseased statement " All of reality is based on majority thought processes."
There is no rational discussion on such matters with those thinking as you’ve stated you do on matters such as this.[/quote]
What doesn’t make sense to me is that as a college athlete I get tested every once in a while for basic stuff to make sure my body is more or less within some measure of normalcy. So, how did she make it to the Olympics and no one thought for a moment it was odd (if they even tested her) that she has such high testosterone levels unless all those women already take steroids and have those test levels anyhow?
