And it isn’t just Caster Semenya, of course. This ruling means that she will have to take testosterone suppressing drugs in order to compete in her chosen events.
(Mods - not sure what forum is best for this thread. Please feel free to move it; but I think The Game Room is to narrow a forum for this subject.)
In short, female athletes with “differences of sexual development (DSD) - must either take medication in order to compete in track events from 400m to the mile, or change to another distance.”
Having read through the summarised ruling in the article (I’ll look tomorrow for something more complete) I’m actually left with the feeling that the position adopted by the Court of Arbitration for Sport is pretty much logical, proportionate and fair - but nevertheless, what a can of worms. The article runs through most of the obvious (practical) problems but other unfairnesses spring to mind. Not least the question of : just a minute, what about men with unusually high testosterone levels? (The article appears to indicate that the rule applies exclusively to women, but if anyone knows otherwise, please correct me.)
And isn’t there an issue of trying to balance human rights against fairness in sport? It sounds like an impossible task.
And despite all that my first reaction is that the CAS position is broadly a good one. Do you disagree? And if you do - well, if this isn’t the solution, what is?
As I remember the anti-doping rules, it’s not so much the level itself but the level in ratio to other hormones. If the ratio of testosterone is too high that’s evidence of doping.
Some athletes are just born with certain anomalies that give them an advantage. As long as the hormones weren’t artificial, she should be allowed to have as much testerone as she wants.
IMHO, the ruling is an outrage. Should all 7’ basketballers be subject to height reduction surgery? Should athletes with unusual lung capacities be forced to have a partial pulmectomy? Should exceptionally bright students have to take mind dulling drugs before taking the SATs because their superior intelligence gives them an unearned advantage? So they pick on one unusual genetic advantage and outlaw that. We all have genetic advantages and disadvantages; that’s part of what makes us all different.
The problem only arises because she is competing in an already restricted and exclusive sporting category that sets out to restrict
participation to those people who fit a certain category, a category that we now realise has no simple dividing line but a category which is based on a somewhat fuzzy and fluid mix of genetics, hormones, surgery and identification. If a line has to be drawn to allow “women” to compete on an equal playing field then you have to come up with a reasonable rationale for drawing that line. Or you don’t have a line. Where would you draw the line?
“male” sport has no such line. Whatever genetics gives you, you can make of the most of. Far simpler.
Be nice if there was a wisdom of Solomon solution to this but there isn’t - the CAS decision sounds the least wrong, most utilitarian way forward IMHO. Terribly unfair from Semenya’s perspective, so the outrage on her behalf is understandable.
Yes, I think “least wrong” is the only way to look at it. I haven’t heard any compelling arguments yet for a perfect solution. Those absolutely opposed to this are failing to come up with any watertight solutions that don’t introduce at least as many problems as they solve.
The one thing that is common to all reporting on this subject is that this is far from the end of the discussion. Expect to see many, many cases in the future that relate to intersex and transgender athletes.
That is an argument, sure. You could draw the line there and it *may * allow you to make that judgement in her case but that *doesn’t *deal with the cases where a person is neither XX nor XY and certainly rules out the possibility of trans athletes competing as women.
What bullshit this is. Poor Caster. What’s next? “Your calf muscles are way too big for a girl’s. You’ll have to get them reduced before you can compete again.”
If the issue is “who gets to compete in female sport?” then no. They are not separate at all.
You draw the line by saying what amounts to “only XX athletes are allowed to compete as women”.
OK, so now deal with the conditions and situations that are impacted by *that *choice.
I’m not having a go at you specifically but it seems like definitive positions such as the one you take will harm as much as many as they help.
Not a perfect analogy though is it? perhaps a better one would the degree to which a paralympic athlete does or does not conform to the regulations of their classification. Or, in the case of partially sighted athletes they introduce a process (eye masks) that ensures a level playing field for that criteria. That seems to me the closest analogy to the CAS ruling.
Someone might, through purely genetic good/bad luck, be placed in a different classification. This leads to a proliferation of classifications and that’s something I rather expect to happen to female sport.
This is the practical upshot of having restricted classes of sport. If the criteria is somewhat fuzzy there will always be borderline cases and hard decisions to make.
You agree that she is seeking to compete in a restricted class yes?
And that the characteristics of that restricted class have nothing to do with calf size?
However they *are *very much to do with what it means to be a female athlete and what are considered to be the key biological features involved. They are fuzzy, arguable, debatable. No clear line exists and I’ve seen none proposed that doesn’t just raise more questions or merely substitutes one unfair situation for another.
I assume that if an athlete had a genetic condition that led to them weighing 90kg you wouldn’t be clamouring for them to be allowed to box as a middleweight?