Her bone structure just seems very masculine to me. Look at the bones of her head - they aren’t gracile like a female skull. They’re more massive, like a man’s facial bones. Look at the eye sockets, for example.
Also, it may fall on the spectrum of “female normal”, but in other pictures she’s had very masculine abs. Look at the picture above, at the runner to the far left. Those are a very muscular woman’s abs. In one picture I saw of Caster, she had abs that were a lot more like a man’s six pack.
Fully half of those runners either have very short hair or pulled back hair, hard to tell, by the way.
This is pretty much what happened to a lot of East German women athletes. Young girls who demonstrated promise as athletes were recruited into state-sponsored training programs, which involved “vitamins” that were actually steroids (including testosterone). The short-term result was some powerful but mannish-looking female athletes. The long-term result…some mannish-looking women with severe health problems and a lot of anger about what had been done to them.
It’s possible that Semenya was given steroids at a young age, perhaps even without knowing it herself. Even if this stopped several years ago it might have had a permanent effect on her developing body. On the other hand, there are women in the world who just happen to be kind of mannish-looking. Maybe Semenya has naturally higher levels of testosterone in her body than most women. Maybe she hit the genetic jackpot when it came to features that would help her become a good athlete, while missing out on those that would make her conventionally “pretty”. There were nasty rumors about Martina Navratilova too because of her looks, but she’s a woman. Looking at the photos of Semenya and her competitors, she looks a bit more “mannish” than the others but not a lot.
Just to note: Semenya’s time wasn’t just good, it was pyrotechnic:
-Many of the top women’s 800 meter times are almost certainly the result of drug use. Note the number from Eastern Europe in the late 1970s/ early 1980s. So Semenya’s 1:55.45 might be a top ten performance of all time, if you take out the drug cheats.
-She’s 18. Even Usain Bolt, probably the most talented sprinter ever, didn’t have the same level of results until his twenties.
I think an extraordinary performance, coupled with a thoroughly masculine appearance, is grounds for questioning and investigating gender. Obviously it could have been handled more tactfully, but from what I read, she was basically unknown before this race, so the organizers didn’t have time to prepare or anything.
His “quirks” are simply the way his body is built, it has nothing to do with the “extra” abilities one gets through gender related performance abilities.
Sports segregate woman vs men. Your analogy is wrong because design issues aren’t related to gender.
It’s like why do flat chested girls dominate running. Well it isn’t hard to figure that out? Large breasted woman have more “drag.” Of course there are some larger breasted women running but they aren’t the norm.
The bottom line is if you’re gonna segregate men from woman you have to have a cut off point. If you don’t like that then simply open up all races to everyone. It’s really simple
Let’s face it all of these “records” people hold are just self defined anyway.
No way. Ben Johnson got busted in 88, Justin Gatlin, Tim Montgomery, and Marion Jones in the 90s/2000s, and the 2008 1500 meter gold medalist (Rashid Ramzi) got his medal taken away for EPO use.
She would not be “ranked properly.” She would be **stripped **of all of her awards, told that they were meaningless because she isn’t a “real” woman.
If maleness isn’t the default or norm, why is the typical 46,XX versus 46,XY being described as a disadvantage, rather than the other way around described as an advantage? Because maleness is the standard from which femaleness deviates. (The same way that most people talk about people with African ancestry having physical characteristics such as broad noses and wide lips, instead of talking about people with European ancestry having narrow noses and thin lips.)
I like this idea a lot.
People keep claiming that if we don’t do gender testing that there will be all of these male competitors flocking to women’s events, but have yet to provide any proof. A simple demonstration that there was a significant group of female competitors who withdrew from competition when gender verification was made mandatory would help your case immensely. (Oh wait, except that didn’t happen.)
That’s pretty much my point–there are already plenty of people who outperform other athletes simply because of certain physiological advantages. So why should an intersexed person be considered any differently?
Presumably she’d be forced to undergo surgery and hormone therapy, unless she’s intersexed in a way that would provide no advantages.
Correct. 46,XY women with AIS are basically immune to testosterone.
My point is that people have all kinds of advantages that others will never obtain with any amount of training, which is the basic crux of the men’s/women’s sports split. Why should an intersexed person be considered any differently? An intersexed person who identifies as female may have some advantages over the other women she competes against, but she will also have disadvantages against male competitors.
:dubious: I’m reasonably sure this has more to do with hormones and body fat percentages–women who train to be runners develop smaller breasts, they don’t run faster because their breasts are smaller to begin with.
Which could be seen as a case for creation of another category in which such a person could race - but it’s not much of an argument for ceasing to restrict entry to women’s competitions.
No, this is just you repeating your bullshit. It is termed a disadvantage because the salient point is that these specific people posses something which makes them inherently worse at competition. Saying that we need a women’s division because men are advantaged over them is stupid because it doesn’t hit the key point.
I’m repeating it because you didn’t understand it the first time. Apparently it’s still going straight over your head, so I’ll try again.
The “key point” as you term it, is that men and women have different capabilities on average. The interesting bit that I have been pointing out is in **how you qualify **those differences–the specific words you choose to refer to them.
The differences in strength etc. between typical 46,XX and 46,XY people could just as easily be described as a disadvantage for the former or an advantage for the latter. To describe it as a disadvantage for the 46,XX necessarily assumes that the 46,XY is the standard. So does saying that they are “inherently worse”–to make a comparison, you have to pick something as the standard to which other things are compared, and you have chosen men.
Also, to get right down to it, women don’t “posses something which makes them inherently worse at competition”–**men **have extra testosterone that helps them build more muscle mass. Or are you trying to say that a uterus weighs a woman down?
Institutionalized doping definitely isn’t like it was a few decades ago (Although, IIRC, there are many women’s track records tied to a suspicious but government-backed Chinese coach from the early 1990s.) However, I believe that it is easier to formulate a new drug than develop an accurate test for it. Furthermore, many dopers do get away with it for a few years. So I wouldn’t say the sport is completely clean, far from it.
You compare against whoever is fastest. In this case it’s men. It’s not a value judgment, it’s a statement of fact. You’re reading way too much into it.
To use Michael Phelps as an example, then, why is his physiology spoken of as an advantage, rather than other swimmers being at a disadvantage by not having the same quirks? After all, he’s the fastest. It’s because other swimmers are the norm from which Phelps deviates.
What exactly is the point of this semantic battle?
The norm being used here is the fastest, open, category. Within that there will be exceptions that deviate from the norm, and they stand out. Women in general can’t compete with men in Track and Field, Swimming, etc, because genetically they are slower, weaker, etc.
What does it matter in this discussion what we define as the norm? It’s arbitrary, but it’s universally agreed upon.
Because when confronted with the breakdown of the male-female dichotomy, we get remarks like this:
So, we are told that intersexed athletes are not female, by definition (Spoiler alert: somehow this “by definition” argument won’t keep world-class athletes being called male though). But, if they’re not that athletic, we’ll class them with women. The negative pregnant here is that if they are very athletic, that counts towards classifying them as male because athleticism and malehood are essentially linked. The possibility that we could count them as women, perhaps women who compete as well as men (because if they did, that would be a genetic difference that meant a significant athletic advantage), is disallowed. The advantage, you see, emanates from maleness and also defines maleness.
I press this “semantic battle” for its own merits, as far as equality goes, as well as to underscore, in the parlance of our times, the naïve positivist scientism of this message board.
