# IAAF wins control of Caster Semenya's body (kind of). **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 1, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345 "2019-05-01T21:39:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 10:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/81 "2019-05-03T10:03:25Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But it seems to me that the question of respecting her right to identify as she chooses cannot be equated with the question of whether she qualifies for a restricted class in sport. Quick note: regardless of any hair-splitting here, referring to Caster as “he” or “him” is a _really fucking shitty thing to do_. _ **She** _ is a woman. She has lived her whole life as a woman, she has convincingly tested as a woman, there’s good reason to believe she’s an XX woman… Hell, even referring to her as “trans” is just plain wrong (and, depending on context, probably pretty evil, hello Fox News), because she’s _not_. Referring to her with male pronouns is just… what even the fuck, mate? (That’s probably why **iiandyiiii** is calling your statements hateful, **clairobscur**. I’m assuming you must have missed something?) > [@Jragon](#): > > I mean, honestly the whole “intersex” angle barely enters into it from a grand perspective. I know XX, cis women, who have conceived literal children, that have PCOS and have T that tests above the new stated limit. This is all about dicking over an intersex (who didn’t even know she was!) black woman who’s really dominant in her sport. Fucking cosigned. Also, there is non-trivial evidence that endogenous testosterone has little to no effect on athletic performance. > **[Healy\_et\_al-2014-Clinical\_Endocrinology.pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/s/somh3lho3qq8c9r/Healy_et_al-2014-Clinical_Endocrinology.pdf?dl=0)** > **[Why do endocrine profiles in elite athletes differ between sports?](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5804043/)** > > Endocrine profiles have been measured on blood samples obtained immediately post-competition from 693 elite athletes from 15 Olympic Sports competing at National or International level; four were subsequently excluded leaving 689 for the current... And more in this twitter thread: [https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1099798725126320129](https://twitter.com/rachelvmckinnon/status/1099798725126320129) A money quote: > [@](#): > > Also note, AND THIS IS KEY, elite cis men’s endogenous testosterone goes alllll the way down to the bottom of cis women’s range. > > There is COMPLETE OVERLAP of cis men’s T values w cis women Or, to quote from Soskin et al: > [@](#): > > More recently Eklund et al. [19] related serum androgen levels to performance in a group of female Olympic athletes. They found no differences in testosterone levels between sports and no correlation between serum testosterone and performance but were able to show weak correlations between some androgen precursors and performance. In a recent review Bermon reported that he was able to find a relationship between free testosterone levels and performance such that those with the highest free testosterone levels had between 1.8 and 4.5% advantage [20]; they found no relation between free testosterone and performance in the elite men. **In the full paper [16] it is clear that they showed no relationship between endogenous testosterone concentration and performance in elite women athletes** nor, unlike the men, any differences in free testosterone between sports. Thus neither group showed a significant correlation between serum total testosterone (the endocrine variable used in the ‘hyperandrogenism’ rule) and performance. They did claim to show a relationship between (estimated) free testosterone and performance in five out of 21 sub-groups but in nine of these sub-groups, those with the lower testosterone performed better. There simply is not good evidence that endogenous testosterone correlates well with athletic performance. There’s very good evidence that exogenous testosterone correlates well with athletic performance (this is why taking it is considered doping), but Caster isn’t taking testosterone supplements. She just produces more than the average woman. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/82 "2019-05-03T10:30:52Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …are you suggesting Caster Semenya is not female? I respect everyone’s right to identify as they choose. She’s a woman. But restricted categories in sport require _objective_ criteria, so it’s inevitable that however those criteria are specified, some people who _are_ women will not qualify for the sporting category “women”. There’s a fundamental sense in which competitive sport being organized in this binary way is in tension with social progress. A restricted category “female” in competitive sport requires objective rules that are fair and consistent, you can’t just _choose_ whether you qualify for the category. But socially, the progressive case for tolerance and acceptance is precisely the opposite - that we should _not_ be forcing people into binary categories based on objective criteria (or at all), and that we should discover people’s identity by talking to them. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/83 "2019-05-03T10:33:42Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Quick note: regardless of any hair-splitting here, referring to Caster as “he” or “him” is a _really fucking shitty thing to do_. _ **She** _ is a woman. She has lived her whole life as a woman, she has convincingly tested as a woman, there’s good reason to believe she’s an XX woman… Hell, even referring to her as “trans” is just plain wrong (and, depending on context, probably pretty evil, hello Fox News), because she’s _not_. Referring to her with male pronouns is just… what even the fuck, mate? Huh? I have always referred to her with female pronouns, including throughout the passage of mine that you quoted above your rant. So… “what even the fuck” indeed. I assume you meant to quote clairobscur? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/84 "2019-05-03T10:44:17Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > She’s a woman. …it seems almost everyone (except one person) agrees on this. I don’t even think the IAAF considers otherwise. So why are we even having this discussion in this thread? > [@](#): > > But restricted categories in sport require _objective_ criteria, so it’s inevitable that however those criteria are specified, some people who _are_ women will not qualify for the sporting category “women”. > > There’s a fundamental sense in which competitive sport being organized in this binary way is in tension with social progress. A restricted category “female” in competitive sport requires objective rules that are fair and consistent, you can’t just _choose_ whether you qualify for the category. But socially, the progressive case for tolerance and acceptance is precisely the opposite - that we should _not_ be forcing people into binary categories based on objective criteria (or at all), and that we should discover people’s identity by talking to them. The “objective criteria” appears to have been implemented to disqualify a single competitor. That doesn’t actually sound that objective to me. And since when did we start using jargon like “restricted categories” or “restricted class” to talk about things like this? I’ve googled those phrases and they aren’t commonly used in this context at all. They are so uncommon (when used in this context) that there are more references to those phrases in this particular thread than I’ve found with a cursory search on the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/85 "2019-05-03T10:57:46Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > We all have genetic advantages and disadvantages; that’s part of what makes us all different. When a restricted league exists to give a realistic opportunity to succeed to people with a specified genetic disadvantage, it is counterproductive to allow entry to people who, through a separate genetic abnormality, do not suffer from that disadvantage. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/86 "2019-05-03T11:02:52Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I said my post, not my cite. I refer to both, your post was fully read. > [@](#): > > Its in the link that I cited. I’m not going to do your work for you I don’t see it. The Guardian article does not quote the question to which the IAAF response refers. The IAAF response you quoted was in their Q&A which anticipated some objections that people may raise and going by that, the IAAF response seems perfectly reasonable. If you have a quote for the specific question asked then feel free to share it, it may well change my mind. > [@](#): > > By specifically defining the rules so that it affects only a single person? How does that sound fair? It doesn’t do that though does it? Caster Semenya is not the only person affected by this ruling. Had this ruling gone the other way that’d be perfectly fine but there would still be a debate to be had because the condition affecting Semenya is only one of many conditions and cases that will need further attention. Indeed, if an argument is accepted that testosterone levels cannot be taken into account then what are the implications for transgender athletes? What argument could reasonably be made for them having to lower their testosterone levels before competing as female? > [@](#): > > Nobody accused Michael Phelps of not working hard enough and not having talent. Michael Phelps was not in a restricted category, There are no categorical criteria to which he must conform, If he was intersex or DSD it is irrelevant. The category he competes in is “anyone” which needs no definition. The category Semenya seeks to operate in _does_, whether we like it or not, require a definition or it is not a meaningful category at all. > [@](#): > > Cater Semenya did work hard enough and she does have talent never seen anyone argue otherwise and certainly not me, she is exceptional. > [@](#): > > What category? You mean talented and hard working? female. as you well know. Or better to say “female as defined for the purpose of sporting categorisation”. Because “female” is somewhat fluid and therein lies the problem. > [@](#): > > The bolded is all that I give fuck about in this discussion. As you agree she is a woman, what more is there to discuss? So as long as someone identifies as a “woman” they should be allowed to compete in female sport? > [@](#): > > You can do whatever the fuck you like. I’m not your monkey and I don’t answer your questions on demand. I really don’t know where the hostility is coming from, my questions were polite and relevant and I’ve fully supportive of Caster Semenya throughout. She is utterly blameless. > [@](#): > > I’ve answered this question. There is no need for a ruling. OK, so the implications of this are that “female” category no longer exists in practice. > [@](#): > > I’ve answered your question. You can’t. ditto > [@](#): > > That question is beyond my paygrade. However you agree that Cater Semenya is a woman, and as far as I’m concerned thats all I give a fuck about. ditto. All that is fine. You are absolutely justified in thinking that a male/female distinction is not needed it is a perfectly valid view to hold. What that doesn’t do is deal with the implications of such a position. If you \*do \*think a distinction is needed, then what do you propose? ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/87 "2019-05-03T11:04:25Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > And since when did we start using jargon like “restricted categories” or “restricted class” to talk about things like this? Since it became necessary to discuss the concept in detail. We have a great deal of openness these days regarding gender identity, but women’s leagues aren’t about gender identity. They exist to give a large subset of the population a realistic opportunity to compete in athletics. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/88 "2019-05-03T11:12:54Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > And since when did we start using jargon like “restricted categories” or “restricted class” to talk about things like this? I’ve googled those phrases and they aren’t commonly used in this context at all. They are so uncommon (when used in this context) that there are more references to those phrases in this particular thread than I’ve found with a cursory search on the internet. I think it is purely a way to talk about the \*general \*principle of limiting competition to a specific class of competitor and to emphasise the fact that once you do create a “class” you are de facto restricting who can compete within in it and definitions are required by which this can be judged. I was the first in the thread to use the term > [@](#): > > restricted and exclusive sporting category as it followed naturally from the point I was making. Perfectly happy to drop the “restricted” part as it is implicit anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/89 "2019-05-03T11:23:04Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > I refer to both, your post was fully read. …well if you’ve missed it that isn’t my problem. > [@](#): > > I don’t see it. The Guardian article does not quote the question to which the IAAF response refers. The IAAF response you quoted was in their Q&A which anticipated some objections that people may raise and going by that, the IAAF response seems perfectly reasonable. If you have a quote for the specific question asked then feel free to share it, it may well change my mind. What was the objection they anticipated? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t do that though does it? Caster Semenya is not the only person affected by this ruling. Who are the other people? > [@](#): > > Had this ruling gone the other way that’d be perfectly fine but there would still be a debate to be had because the condition affecting Semenya is only one of many conditions and cases that will need further attention. Indeed, if an argument is accepted that testosterone levels cannot be taken into account then what are the implications for transgender athletes? What argument could reasonably be made for them having to lower their testosterone levels before competing as female? Perhaps you should start a thread about transgender athletes if you want to have that discussion. > [@](#): > > Michael Phelps was not in a restricted category, There are no categorical criteria to which he must conform, If he was intersex or DSD it is irrelevant. The category he competes in is “anyone” which needs no definition. The category Semenya seeks to operate in _does_, whether we like it or not, require a definition or it is not a meaningful category at all. “Restricted category” appears to be a bit of jargon you’ve invented. I have no interest in having a discussion with you over something it appears you’ve just made up. > [@](#): > > never seen anyone argue otherwise and certainly not me, she is exceptional. Then bringing it up was irrelevant. > [@](#): > > female. as you well know. Or better to say “female as defined for the purpose of sporting categorisation”. Because “female” is somewhat fluid and therein lies the problem. “Sporting categorization” is another piece of jargon you’ve just invented. > [@](#): > > So as long as someone identifies as a “woman” they should be allowed to compete in female sport? Can you remind me why we are even having this discussion? This thread is about Caster. You concede she is a woman. What relevance does this question have to do with this discussion again? > [@](#): > > I really don’t know where the hostility is coming from, my questions were polite and relevant and I’ve fully supportive of Caster Semenya throughout. She is utterly blameless. Because lets be honest here: you aren’t just asking questions. You are Just Asking Questions. > [@](#): > > OK, so the implications of this are that “female” category no longer exists in practice. Nope. > [@](#): > > ditto Nope. > [@](#): > > ditto. Nope. The IAAF haven’t ruled Caster isn’t female. All of this is irrelevant. > [@](#): > > All that is fine. You are absolutely justified in thinking that a male/female distinction is not needed it is a perfectly valid view to hold. What that doesn’t do is deal with the implications of such a position. If you \*do \*think a distinction is needed, then what do you propose? What do you mean what do I propose? What is the problem that needs fixing? ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/90 "2019-05-03T11:27:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Since it became necessary to discuss the concept in detail. …then perhaps you could start by defining it, and getting everyone in the thread to agree with the definition. > [@](#): > > We have a great deal of openness these days regarding gender identity, but women’s leagues aren’t about gender identity. They exist to give a large subset of the population a realistic opportunity to compete in athletics. Are you suggesting Caster Semenya is not female? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/91 "2019-05-03T12:01:37Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …it really has fuck-all to do with American progressives. It has everything to do with respecting the wishes of the people you are talking about. “Not respecting wishes” isn’t the same thing as being hateful, to begin with. Secondly, as I already pointed out, I regularly don’t respect the wishes of people I’m talking about, but in most cases, nobody cares. People only cares about some specific wishes by some specific categories of people. What is good for the goose is good for the gender. If it’s acceptable to not respect the wishes of category A, then it’s equally acceptable to not respect the wishes of category B. Or alternatively, you and I should refrain from any statement deemed offensive by any category of people. Which would make most exchanges impossible. I reject the idea that your preferred category of people should benefit from special consideration that you wouldn’t extend to other categories of people. Thirdly, I agree that it’s common courtesy not to discuss some personal subjects in an ordinary setting. For instance, if we’re coworkers, I should probably refrain to mention during the coffee break your past conviction and jail time, your colorectal surgery or your sexual attraction to midget clowns. If, however, your past conviction or your colorectal surgery or your sexual attraction to midget clowns makes the headlines, then it becomes open to debate and discussion. In this case, the biological make up and the gender of this person is at center of a public controversy. Refraining from mentioning her biological make up or discussing her gender is refusing to discuss the reality of the situation out of, at best, prudishness. And pretending that the debate and controversy _isn’t_ about her gender is plainly ludicrous on its face and a denial of reality. Like it or not, this person isn’t biologically female by common definition, or male for that matter. That’s not hate, that’s fact. And the whole issue revolves around this fact. Stating that nobody should mention this fact let’s he’ll be considered an horrible person is once again at the very best prudishness. About how many subjects would you argue that the facts of the matter shouldn’t be mentioned and should be danced around because acknowledging them could be offensive for the person involved? Very few, I’m pretty sure. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/92 "2019-05-03T12:09:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Are you suggesting Caster Semenya is not female? I’m suggesting that it is plausible that, due to a quirk of genetics, Caster does not have the specific athletic disadvantage that women’s leagues were created to compensate for. Or, if you are willing to look at it from another direction… It is plausible that Caster does have the same athletic advantages as people whom women’s leagues were created to exclude. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/93 "2019-05-03T12:10:25Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > “Not respecting wishes” isn’t the same thing as being hateful, to begin with. > > Secondly, as I already pointed out, I regularly don’t respect the wishes of people I’m talking about, but in most cases, nobody cares. People only cares about some specific wishes by some specific categories of people. What is good for the goose is good for the gender. If it’s acceptable to not respect the wishes of category A, then it’s equally acceptable to not respect the wishes of category B. Or alternatively, you and I should refrain from any statement deemed offensive by any category of people. Which would make most exchanges impossible. I reject the idea that your preferred category of people should benefit from special consideration that you wouldn’t extend to other categories of people. > > Thirdly, I agree that it’s common courtesy not to discuss some personal subjects in an ordinary setting. For instance, if we’re coworkers, I should probably refrain to mention during the coffee break your past conviction and jail time, your colorectal surgery or your sexual attraction to midget clowns. If, however, your past conviction or your colorectal surgery or your sexual attraction to midget clowns makes the headlines, then it becomes open to debate and discussion. In this case, the biological make up and the gender of this person is at center of a public controversy. Refraining from mentioning her biological make up or discussing her gender is refusing to discuss the reality of the situation out of, at best, prudishness. And pretending that the debate and controversy _isn’t_ about her gender is plainly ludicrous on its face and a denial of reality. Like it or not, this person isn’t biologically female by common definition, or male for that matter. That’s not hate, that’s fact. And the whole issue revolves around this fact. Stating that nobody should mention this fact let’s he’ll be considered an horrible person is once again at the very best prudishness. About how many subjects would you argue that the facts of the matter shouldn’t be mentioned and should be danced around because acknowledging them could be offensive for the person involved? Very few, I’m pretty sure. …its no wonder posters like Una Persson stopped posting here. Thank you for this positive and constructive contribution to making these boards a more inclusive place. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/94 "2019-05-03T12:15:41Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > I’m suggesting that it is plausible that, due to a quirk of genetics, Caster does not have the specific athletic disadvantage that women’s leagues were created to compensate for. …is that a yes you are suggesting Caster isn’t female or no you aren’t suggesting Caster isn’t female? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/95 "2019-05-03T12:18:50Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Who are the other people? Caster Semenya is not the only person affected by this particular condition, nor other similar and associated conditions. [This article](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/3/828/2839059) (which I believe is peer-reviewd, respectable and formed part of the ongoing CAS case) states > [@](#): > > in a recent study conducted in a large group of elite female athletes, we reported that the prevalence of women with a 46 XY disorder of sex development (DSD) condition is at least 7 per 1000, which is dramatically higher than expected in the general population So, \*those \*other athletes are affected as well. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should start a thread about transgender athletes if you want to have that discussion. It isn’t that I want to have that discussion, but that \*any \*discussion of artificially lowering testosterone necessarily means such cases are involved already. It is part of this same discussion. Or maybe you don’t think transgender athletes are women? > [@](#): > > “Restricted category” appears to be a bit of jargon you’ve invented. I have no interest in having a discussion with you over something it appears you’ve just made up. It was merely a description that got a bit of traction. No more jargon than any other adjective/noun pairing. I think everyone else understands what it means and it carries no value judgement within it. If you are choosing to use it as an excuses to not continue, feel free. I’ll just use “class” or “category” from here on in if it helps. > [@](#): > > Then bringing it up was irrelevant. err, I didn’t bring up her talent or work ethic at all. > [@](#): > > “Sporting categorization” is another piece of jargon you’ve just invented. I agree I have put two words together in order to communicate a concept. Forgive me, It was the way I chose to succinctly describe the concept of sport sometimes being divided into competitions of different classifications. > [@](#): > > Can you remind me why we are even having this discussion? This thread is about Caster. You concede she is a woman. What relevance does this question have to do with this discussion again? The ruling has implications beyond purely Caster Semenya (as indeed it is intended to do) Those are legitimate discussions. > [@](#): > > Because lets be honest here: you aren’t just asking questions. You are Just Asking Questions. You are lazily assuming that I hold an opinion opinion that I do not hold and extrapolating from there. Any unbiased reading of what I’ve written in this thread would show your assumption is wrong. What I don’t do is assume that there is a easy answer or a quick and clean fix that can be applied without it affecting some other group. Your posts do seem to suggest that you think there is and I’m pushing you on that, I’m intrigued to know where that certainty of position comes from and whether you’ve thought it through. > [@](#): > > What do you mean what do I propose? What is the problem that needs fixing? That would be the problem that the IAAF, CAS and Caster Semenya have spent 10 years thrashing out (one small aspect of) to come to pretty inconclusive, semi-resolution. So again, straight question. What do you think the criteria should be for allowing someone to compete in the female classes of sport? There must be something or the classification is meaningless (which is a valid point of view in itself). That is what it boils down to,it is just \*one \*such criteria that CAS and the IAAF are wrestling with and I am genuinely interested to know what you think and to understand all sides of the argument because…here’s the thing…I don’t know. If you have nothing to add other than considering the IAAF and CAS to be in error then fine, no problem, duly noted, you are not alone in that reaction. The rest of us can carry on with discussing the wider implications. I think that’s allowed. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/96 "2019-05-03T12:27:32Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > “Not respecting wishes” isn’t the same thing as being hateful, to begin with. What a sophistic non-argument. I regret giving her the benefit of the doubt and will not give her the benefit of the doubt on such issues in the future. Misgendering people denigrates them on the basis of their gender. With trans people, it aggravates their dysphoria (a serious medical condition) and signals that you are not a safe person to be around. In the case of Caster Semenya, people like **claire** are misgendering her in an attempt to denigrate her accomplishments and push her out of her career; this is a bit like if Claire heard, “Please don’t call me a nigger, that’s really hateful” and her response was “Simply not respecting your wishes isn’t hateful”. Fuck _that_ noise. > [@](#): > > Secondly, as I already pointed out, I regularly don’t respect the wishes of people I’m talking about, but in most cases, nobody cares. People only cares about some specific wishes by some specific categories of people. And if you take maybe five minutes to think about it, you may be able to come up with reasons _why_ people might care more about certain wishes than others, **Claire**. Why there are material difference between refusing your friend’s request to be called “Chad Thundernut” and refusing to refer to a woman as a woman in an attempt to exclude her and denigrate her achievements. > [@](#): > > In this case, the biological make up and the gender of this person is at center of a public controversy. Regardless of your personal opinion about her genetic makeup, everything we know about Caster Semenya tells us that her gender is female. No amount of increased endogenous testosterone will change that fact, and referring to her as a man is pretty fucked up. Because she’s not. And nothing about the IAAF’s decision could change that. It’s not, as you seem to imply, a “fact”. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/97 "2019-05-03T12:31:53Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > By specifically defining the rules so that it affects only a single person? How does that sound fair? It happens all the time in courts, for instance. And even in the legislative process. A specific situation involving a specific person is brought to light. A court makes a ruling about this situation. An assembly amends the law to adress this situation. The ruling or law however applies to anybody in the same situation. It might be that there’s only ten people in this situation in the whole country. Or maybe even one. Doesn’t make it inherently unfair, though. She isn’t biologically clearly female. That her ability to compete in an event that is reserved to females would be discussed is normal. From what I read earlier in the thread, her biological make-up gives her an insurmountable advantage over other competitors. Why should her desire to compete and have a shot at victory trump the desire of all others competitors to compete and have a shot at victory? How would that be fair? Why would you feel that protecting at any costs her right to classify herself as female in all circumstances is more important than any other consideration? If someone who is indisputably 100% male biologically expressed the desire to compete in women sports, would you agree? Would you if this desire was based on the sincere and honest feeling that s/he’s a woman? Would you feel that it’s fair for all other competitors? ---
**Author:** ![DB\_Coopa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@DB\_Coopa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DB_Coopa)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/98 "2019-05-03T12:31:55Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …I’m sorry you couldn’t help yourself from thinking of that scene, but the least you could have done was have the self-control not to post that disgusting, horrible, completely unrelated scene to this thread. I don’t need to see what Trump’s “Grab them by the pussy” looks like in real life thanks. Oh dear. Do you need some time in your safe space? Bringing Trump in to it as well.:rolleyes: Weak. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/99 "2019-05-03T12:41:29Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Caster Semenya is not the only person affected by this particular condition, nor other similar and associated conditions. > > [This article](https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/100/3/828/2839059) (which I believe is peer-reviewd, respectable and formed part of the ongoing CAS case) states > > So, \*those \*other athletes are affected as well. …that wasn’t the question. Unless those other athletes are competing at the same level as Cater in the 400m, 800m, and 1500m they aren’t affected by the ruling. So which athletes are you talking about? > [@](#): > > It isn’t that I want to have that discussion, but that \*any \*discussion of artificially lowering testosterone necessarily means such cases are involved already. It is part of this same discussion. Or maybe you don’t think transgender athletes are women? Transwomen are women. Without a doubt. > [@](#): > > It was merely a description that got a bit of traction. No more jargon than any other adjective/noun pairing. I think everyone else understands what it means and it carries no value judgement within it. If you are choosing to use it as an excuses to not continue, feel free. I’ll just use “class” or “category” from here on in if it helps. No I don’t understand what it means. I googled it to find out what context you were using it and found nothing. I still don’t know what you mean. > [@](#): > > err, I didn’t bring up her talent or work ethic at all. Yep. You just dropped “talent and work” into the discussion randomly. But you didn’t want me to associate that with Caster. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > I agree I have put two words together in order to communicate a concept. Forgive me, It was the way I chose to succinctly describe the concept of sport sometimes being divided into competitions of different classifications. What classifications are you talking about? And why is Phelps not subject to classifications but Caster is? > [@](#): > > The ruling has implications beyond purely Caster Semenya (as indeed it is intended to do) Those are legitimate discussions. Then have those legitimate discussions with those people who want to have that discussion. > [@](#): > > You are lazily assuming that I hold an opinion opinion that I do not hold and extrapolating from there. Any unbiased reading of what I’ve written in this thread would show your assumption is wrong. What I don’t do is assume that there is a easy answer or a quick and clean fix that can be applied without it affecting some other group. Your posts do seem to suggest that you think there is and I’m pushing you on that, I’m intrigued to know where that certainty of position comes from and whether you’ve thought it through. This is exactly how Just Asking Questions works. I’m not “lazily assuming” anything. Its what you are doing. > [@](#): > > That would be the problem that the IAAF, CAS and Caster Semenya have spent 10 years thrashing out (one small aspect of) to come to pretty inconclusive, semi-resolution. And what problem is that? > [@](#): > > So again, straight question. What do you think the criteria should be for allowing someone to compete in the female classes of sport? There must be something or the classification is meaningless (which is a valid point of view in itself). I’ve given you a straight answer. What part of “its above my paygrade” did you not understand? > [@](#): > > That is what it boils down to,it is just \*one \*such criteria that CAS and the IAAF are wrestling with and I am genuinely interested to know what you think and to understand all sides of the argument because…here’s the thing…I don’t know. But they aren’t dealing with that issue. This hasn’t dealt with that issue. > [@](#): > > If you have nothing to add other than considering the IAAF and CAS to be in error then fine, no problem, duly noted, you are not alone in that reaction. The rest of us can carry on with discussing the wider implications. I think that’s allowed. Lets be clear here for a minute: YOU STARTED TALKING TO ME. You don’t have to ask my fucking permission to have a discussion about the “wider implications.” Just stop trying to force a discussion about the “wider implications” with me when it should be pretty fucking clear I have no fucking interest in having that discussion. So don’t act like I interrupted a conversation you were having and don’t act like I’m trying to limit the scope of the general discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2019, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345/100 "2019-05-03T12:45:21Z")
> [@DB\_Coopa](#): > > Oh dear. > > Do you need some time in your safe space? Bringing Trump in to it as well.:rolleyes: Weak. …oh I’m in my safe space. The video you posted was disgusting. It showed a fictionalised sexual assault. We don’t need to see rubbish like that: and it has nothing to do with this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iaaf-wins-control-of-caster-semenyas-body-kind-of/833345.md?page=6)