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?)
Fucking cosigned.
Also, there is non-trivial evidence that endogenous testosterone has little to no effect on athletic performance.
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.
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.
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?
…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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
never seen anyone argue otherwise and certainly not me, she is exceptional.
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.
So as long as someone identifies as a “woman” they should be allowed to compete in female sport?
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.
OK, so the implications of this are that “female” category no longer exists in practice.
ditto
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?
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.
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
as it followed naturally from the point I was making. Perfectly happy to drop the “restricted” part as it is implicit anyway.
Perhaps you should start a thread about transgender athletes if you want to have that discussion.
“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.
Then bringing it up was irrelevant.
“Sporting categorization” is another piece of jargon you’ve just invented.
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?
Because lets be honest here: you aren’t just asking questions. You are Just Asking Questions.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope. The IAAF haven’t ruled Caster isn’t female. All of this is irrelevant.
What do you mean what do I propose? What is the problem that needs fixing?
“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.
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.
…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:
Caster Semenya is not the only person affected by this particular condition, nor other similar and associated conditions.
This article (which I believe is peer-reviewd, respectable and formed part of the ongoing CAS case) states
So, *those *other athletes are affected as well.
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?
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.
err, I didn’t bring up her talent or work ethic at all.
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.
The ruling has implications beyond purely Caster Semenya (as indeed it is intended to do) Those are legitimate discussions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
…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?
Transwomen are women. Without a doubt.
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.
Yep. You just dropped “talent and work” into the discussion randomly. But you didn’t want me to associate that with Caster. Gotcha.
What classifications are you talking about? And why is Phelps not subject to classifications but Caster is?
Then have those legitimate discussions with those people who want to have that discussion.
This is exactly how Just Asking Questions works. I’m not “lazily assuming” anything. Its what you are doing.
And what problem is that?
I’ve given you a straight answer. What part of “its above my paygrade” did you not understand?
But they aren’t dealing with that issue. This hasn’t dealt with that issue.
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.
…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.