Actually, there likely is - change the dividing line from “male” sports and “female” sports to something based on baseline hormone levels. If your body produces testosterone>X (or X%) you compete in the unlimited class, if <x you compete in the limited class. Seems fair to a simple guy like me.
Why shouldn’t a woman be allowed to compete in women’s events?
define “woman”
Agreed that there is a medical ethical question. However, from the CAS press release (my bolding in BOTH quotes):
- so at least the medications used are well established, even if this particular use of them may be off-licence.
j
As already asked, what is your definition of “woman” and what makes you say that this person is a woman rather than a man? If he’s XY, as mentioned earlier in this thread, he’s a man by at least one common definition.
Where would you personally draw the line in the sand, and in what way would it be better than any other line in the sand?
So far, athleticism doesn’t have an “intersexed” category, which would be the proper one.
How about a transgendered woman? Narrow of pelvis, broad of shoulder, strong of bone, and stout of limb- and with medical intervention, her body now has a testosterone level low enough to qualify for the limited class.
Isn’t this basically what’s just been done? And I don’t hear anyone saying that’s problem solved in a fair way to everyone’s satisfaction. I personally think it’s the most fair way of resolving a complex problem, others think (with obvious justification) that it’s total bullshit.
You realise Semenya is 2 levels above every other female 800m runner so can win at a training pace, but she’s still a number of levels below elite male runners? I think her times would be roughly that of a good, but not outstanding, male college athlete, so it’s not like she can step into the open category. This ruling takes her livelihood away overnight, unless she wants to submit to an ethically dubious hormone supression regime.
As I think someone else observed, in this context what matters is the IAAF definition of “woman”. Turns out they have one; but I’m not willing to provide the IAAF with that much information in order to download it.
Re: an intersex “category”, yes and no. Intersex is at least recognised, and the IAAF are making a reasoned attempt to address the issue:
j
jesus christ seriously
Whatever your opinions on the rules of athletic competition, this misgendering appears deliberate, hateful, and entirely unnecessary to your argument. Semenya grew up as a girl and never thought of herself as anything other than a girl or a woman. She has never identified as anything other than a girl or woman, and has never claimed to be trans that I’m aware of.
But there are physiological differences between men and women others than differences in hormone levels. Your dividing line would only address one issue.So why this one rather than, say, if you’re taller than 1m80 you compete in the unlimited class?
Semenya has “passed” a sex verification test, by the way, in 2010. The results are kept private for obvious privacy reasons, but in 2010 scientists knew how to check chromosomes, as well as knowing the anatomical differences between men and women.
I’m sorry, but what exactly makes whatever definition those scientists use for “woman” any more valid than any other definition?
Them being scientists doesn’t make their arbitrary line in the sand any better than another arbitrary line in the sand.
If you’re just searching for any justification to say hateful things about Semenya, then you don’t need my help.
How is it hateful?
You tell me “scientist have determined that”. I’m certain that scientists can establish with certainty if a particular individual fit a specific definition.
But why would this specific and necessarily arbitrary definition is any better that any other? What is this definition, to begin with?
Do you deny that there are people who are neither clearly male nor female by the usually common acceptance of the word that implies that everybody fits neatly in one category or another? If you don’t, you must admit that there’s a number of people who have both male and female characteristics. Any definition you can come up, even if picked by scientist, will include some people and exclude others. They have female characteristic A, but scientist definition depends on whether or not you have female characteristic B, and A is irrelevant.
If you think that whatever definition they picked is is the ultimate and indisputable truth, then you’re effectively stating that people who are excluded by this definition can’t be women. And that people included by this definition are women. In both cases, whether they want it or not.
If you decide that this “scientist” definition is the only valid one, then you’re exactly as hateful as you think I am, since it will inevitably result in some people, who define themselves as men or women, being classified otherwise. “Not hating” Semanya, will inevitably result in “hating” others who fail to conform to this definition. For all I know, it can be that all transexuals claims to be women will be “proven” false by this definition, for instance.
So, again, why would you assume this “scientist definition” to be better than any other?
Talk about athletic policy all you want, I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with your choice to misgender Semenya and insist or imply that she’s not a woman, which is indeed hateful, and entirely unnecessary to any argument about athletic competition policy.
First, it is not hateful. Second I used “she” in my posts until I wrote a specific sentence. I couldn’t write “then SHE is a MAN” , and neither could I write “If SHE is XY then HE is a man”
Whether she is a man or a woman is entirely dependent on whatever definition of “woman” you use. Your definition seems to be “whatever they want to be called” which might be nice, but is totally useless to determine whether someone should be considered a man or a woman with regard to participation in sports. Whether you like it or not, what they want to be called is utterly irrelevant when it comes to decide whether they’ll be allowed to participate in men or women competitions.
Besides, if in your opinion the only valid way to determine whether someone is a man or a woman is what they feel they are or what they want to be called, then you mentioning scientist definition was totally disingenuous because you would have rejected this scientific determination if it had happened to contradict her or any other person claims, and inevitably it would have contradicted some people claims. So, you would have accepted or rejected it depending on who we were talking about. You only used this argument because in this particular case it happened to support them while knowing perfectly that it could not have been the case and then you would not only not have mentioned it, but even opposed it if someone else had brought it up as evidence. If your stance is “they are whatever they say they are”, then don’t hide behind some supposedly scientific definition when you don’t really accept its validity.
You, and many others, have come to integrate the idea that people are what they claim to be (when it comes to certain very specific things you are particularly sensitive about, because you wouldn’t extend this concept to anything) and calling them anything else is heinous. I reject this idea. I’m fine with calling people what they want to be called out of courtesy, but when we come to discuss what a “woman” and a “man” is, and what definition of either word should be used in a given context like sports, it’s impossible to rely on what people call themselves since any conceivable definition will necessarily put some people in the category they don’t feel they belong to. The only way out of this would to reject any attempt at defining what “woman” and “man” means, either in general or in a specific context. To reject that these words could have any definition, and assume that they are entirely subjective qualifiers. But then we should stop talking about women competition or men competition and maybe abolish entirely the distinction, which you’d very probably be opposed to. In fact, we should stop talking about “men” and “women” in general because if it’s entirely subjective in all circumstances, then calling yourself one or the other is entirely meaningless.
As soon as you have to define what a “woman” and a “man” is for any specific purpose, like sports here, then people won’t end up being classified the way they would want to be. If Semanya is, then someone else won’t be because the factor that will include her will exclude someone else who similarly claims to be a woman. Or alternatively it would exclude all of them, because for some definitions of the terms, they’re neither men nor women. In any case, regardless of the definition you use, you’ll end up telling some people “sorry, you might be a woman according to your definition, but you aren’t according to ours, which is the only one that matters when it comes to participating in a women competition”.
I mean, it’s really just an example of administrative violence. That article mainly focuses on trans people and data science, but the parallels are clear. Binary gender classification is a house of cards, as are many forms of categorization, and we’re just starting to see the limits of it. Of course, I don’t expect them to actually learn from this and reform the entire system, and I’ll always admit what we now term as “women’s sports” exist for a fairly decent reason, but it’s just an extension of the extreme attempts to categorize individuals and take a hammer to any nail that sticks out.
…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.
Then we’re done here. I think it’s extremely hateful to deliberately misgender someone and insist that they are not the gender they say they are, especially when it’s entirely unnecessary to any argument you’re making. Just pure hatefulness, whether that’s what you intend or not. If you don’t think this is hateful, then we live in such different moral universes that there’s no possibility of reasonable discussion.
It’d be entirely possible to fashion an argument that Semenya shouldn’t be allowed to compete for a reason that is not about her gender, but rather about some sort of inherently unfair physiological advantage she has, if that’s what you believe. But that’s not what you did – you’re insisting that she’s not a woman, and deliberately misgendering her. Your choice, and my choice to criticize you for it.