Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by nomad, May 1, 2019.
Some people don't like being rumbled, it seems...
But the IAAF regard her and any/all other 46XY DSD athletes as legally female.
That’s why the regulation Semenya challenged existed in the first place. The IAAF knowingly allow biological men to compete as women.
Do we actually know this? Or is this just a guess?
Know what? That the IAAF regard XY DSD athletes as legally female? Or that Caster Semenya is XY, not XX?
Please clarify what you’re querying!
@FrankWolley From the CAS / IAAF press release:
The arbitration procedures concerned the “IAAF Eligibility Regulations for Female Classification (Athletes with Differences of Sex Development)” (DSD Regulations) that were due to come into effect on 1 November 2018 and which are currently suspended, pending the outcome of the CAS procedures.
In other words, who can fit the definition of, and legally (in the sense of athletics regulations) be defined as being female.
Caster Semenya is definitely XY, as opposed to XX, as the ruling that was subject to appeal specifically relates to 46XY DSD individuals, and not XX individuals.
If Caster Semenya was XX she would not have appealed against the ruling limiting her testosterone levels as she would not have been covered by it.
Again from the press release:
In March/April 2018, the IAAF cancelled its “Hyperandrogenism Regulations”, which had been primarily challenged by the Indian athlete Dutee Chand, and replaced them with the DSD Regulations establishing new requirements governing the eligibility of women with DSD for the female classification in race events from 400m to 1 mile (the “Restricted Events”) at international athletics competitions. The DSD covered by the Regulations are limited to athletes with “46 XY DSD” – i.e. conditions where the affected individual has XY chromosomes. Accordingly, individuals with XX chromosomes are not subject to any restrictions or eligibility conditions under the DSD Regulation.
Again, here is the press release:
Quite what disorder of sexual development Semenya has is, as yet, publicly undisclosed.
However, as Semenya is XY, biologically Caster Semenya is male, irrespective of how the individual has either been raised or self-defines.
Can we put arguments about this to bed now, please?
It’s getting wearing repeatedly posting the same evidence over and over.
An XX individual would not appeal against a regulation which only affects XY individuals.
Shush, you can't say that.
From what I've seen and read she was born female but has naturally very high testosterone levels. It now seems she is being penalised because of her metabolism. Should we then penalise high jumpers because nature made them taller than others?
Caster Semenya has XY chromosomes.
XX = female
XY = male
I don’t know what you were reading to come to your conclusion, but it certainly wasn’t the CAS/IAAF press release.
Caster Semenya loses case to compete as a woman in all track races.
In this interview Caster Semenya discusses her childhood and making the choice to pursue running over football.
I’ve no idea if the ruling football authority conducts sex checks, perhaps not and maybe if she’d been a footballer her XY status would have remained secret/unknown.
You agreed that she's a "bloke". I was querying that. (And, I have to say, I don't think post #25 proves what you claim).
Remember that nearly a decade ago she passed a so-called 'sex' test (properly termed a 'gender' test, I believe):
If she is XY and androgen intollerant then this seems resaonable.
If she is XX with unusually high testosterone then no. This mutation is her good luck on the track. Where do we stop? Do we take biopsies to determine fast twitch: slow twitch muscle ratios and set acceptable levels?
This seems a very personal intrusion, I am not comfortable with it at all.
It’s a hard one. One one hand, I fully understand and appreciate the merits of the case. On the other, there is no future for women's sport if you allow those who would wholly dominate due to biological advantages equal participation rights without regulation. It’s interesting that taking the hormone suppression slows her down that much. It shows how much testosterone makes one go faster. At the same time as I support the merits of her case yet I also support the outcome of her case. I don’t think there is any easy answer to this which is better than the current hormone suppression answer.
She HAS to be XY as she has been subject to, and appealed against, a ruling that only affects XY DSD athletes, not XX ones.
If she was XX then she would not be required to lower her testosterone levels.
This is clearly stated in the CAS/IAAF press release about their decision today.
I’m also not entirely convinced she’s androgen intolerant. CAIS individuals tend to have a much more feminine physique, although exceptions can occur.
Interestingly the ruling is that 46XY DSD athletes must have a testosterone level below 5 nmol/l, whereas transwomen are allowed to have double that to 10nmol/l and still compete as women.
Here's the views of an athlete beaten by Semanya:
I competed for Australia in the 800m against Semenya at the 2009 World Athletics Championships in Berlin. Today I am convinced that the court of arbitration for sport’s decision to endorse rules aimed at excluding Semenyaand other women athletes with naturally high levels of testosterone is the wrong one.
An absence of male genitalia would enable her to be classed as female, given that the IAAF consider 46XY DSD athletes as legally female although biologically male.
They can compete in women’s events, however they are subject to the rule that they lower their testosterone.
This is the rule that Caster Semenya has been appealing against. And the one which she lost today.
I gather that when females trans into males there isn't the issue with muscle definition and testosterone levels so either the former females do not compete in men's events or if they do they tend not to be competitive so there is no reason to ban them.
And yet if you talk to Lynsey Sharp, a British athlete beaten by Semenya, you’ll get a very different response.
I agree with today’s decision which has been a long time coming.