Caster Semenya- how can I explain this to DH?

[AngeloMysterioso]

Watching the athletics on TV, and they had a little video and debate about Caster Semenya. DH who can be completely pig headed at the best of times says the girls competing against her are just bitter because they can't win. A debate ensues between us about it- he's saying it's essentially the same as average height basketball players complaining about tall men having an advantage because of their height, or white sprinters complaining that black sprinters have an advantage because of their musculature. He is absolutely insistent that it's basically the same thing. How the hell do I make him understand?!

@maidofstars I think I'm not quite connecting the dots in your previous comments! So that still is a binary biological gender, just allowing for wide variation?

turners syndrome, for example, both affect characteristics which are determined as biologically female but doesn't lead people to describe the person as intersex
IMO, Turner syndrome is not an intersex condition. Females aren't "between" being female and male.

Bemused 'Surely the very obvious problem is that simple binary sex categories of M and F just do not cover the complexity of the many physical permutations that arise in relation to the human body?'

There is a big difference between natural variation (most differences in height) and pathology (having three arms, for example). Intersex conditions are not natural variation but pathology due abnormal embryological development. Physical appearance may not match the genes, but as far as science is concerned the presence of a Y chromosome indicates maleness.

What I'm trying to say is that problems of embryological development that produce confusing situations in a small number of cases don't change the fact that there are two sexes.

I think I'm not quite connecting the dots in your previous comments! So that still is a binary biological gender, just allowing for wide variation?
Sorry, I was alluding to a trope that pops up on these threads.

Biological sex is binary; the existence of medical conditions that sometimes make biological sex ambiguous does not undermine that fact.

Just as humans have two legs; the existence of medical conditions that cause some people to not have two legs does not undermine that fact.

reetgood You are the one who has come to the conclusion that I am referring to intersex competitors and intersex competitors only. What I actually said was Either way, we are rapidly approaching a situation where it is not worthwhile for young girls to consider a career in elite sport.

I had in mind the issue of transwomen competing in women's sport as well, especially with the new gender identity bill proposals and the immense power of the trans lobby. You only need one or two such athletes to have a tremendous effect in any field. Any athlete needs to believe at the start of the competition that they can win, not that they can aim for bronze because they will probably never be able to beat transwomen lining up with them.

The confusing IAAF position on testosterone levels doesn't help. Whilst there are very many biological factors that make one athlete better than another (some unknown), many of these are likely to confer small advantages. Male sex and specifically testosterone confer a major advantage so it is reasonable to control for them at the elite level, especially as it is relatively easy to identify/measure.

Very succinct, MaidOfStars, I just waffled on. Funnily enough, when I used the example of 3 arms, I hadn't read your post.

@charlestonchaplin I think you're conflating three issues - transwomen, endocrinological disorders and intersex? And it's a fair old leap from castor semenya competing to 'omg won't someone think of the girls! These transwomen are ruining elite sport!'

@maidofstars I see, thanks for clarifying!

sashh

You keep claiming she's intersex as though you have actual evidence to back it up. You don't.

Until you do, I suggest you might wish to refer to her by the correct gender - a woman. You have no evidence to suggest she is intersex.

Either way, we are rapidly approaching a situation where it is not worthwhile for young girls to consider a career in elite sport

I really don't think we are- that is exaggerating the issue greatly. We are talking about one person here who runs 800 m and 1500 metres and will probably retire in the next 5 years or so. It's not like the athletics world is crawling with transwomen or intersex athletes.

Wouldn't people like Paula Radcliffe, Laura Muir, Laura Trott, Jess Ennis, Victoria Pendleton etc serve as great role models for young girls with the talent to succeed?

The gender identity bill that someone mentioned is a private members bill and will never become law. I will eat my hat if it does. All kinds of crazy bills (and some really sensible ones) are introduced by private members. Unless the government jumps on board, they very very rarely become law.

"There is a big difference between natural variation (most differences in height) and pathology (having three arms, for example)"

I'm not sure it's that clear cut. It seems to me that the definition of some pathology is cultural, i.e. it is about being able to fit into socio-cultural norms and narratives, rather than pure selective pressures?

Interesting article summarising arguments that sex cannot be reduced to chromosomes here: www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

Also, has anyone on this thread read Gender Trouble all the way through?

Bemusedandpuzzled:

Interesting article summarising arguments that sex cannot be reduced to chromosomes here: www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

Read the article, it is based on the work of a social scientist (philosopher), not a biologist or geneticist and whilst it raises talking points, is not a work of science. Humans are biologically sexually dimorphic. The presence of a Y chromosome indicates male, the absence indicates female. Whilst conditions exists such as XXY XXX and a few others, they are extremely rare. As mentioned by a previous poster, humans show bilateral symmetry and possess two arms, two legs etc. Some people are born with a different number, they are still human, but they have a condition which makes them different from the 'norm' they are still people, and do not change the general rule that humans have two arms and two legs etc IF Caster has a Y chromosome, she is biologically male. She may feel or identify as a female, she may have been raised as a female, but biologically, IF she possess a Y chromosome she is male, and should compete in the male races. Since her medical records are not freely available, then the discussion is clouded by uncertainty. She may be XX she may be XY. IMO, if she is XY she (and any others possessing an X chromosme) should not be allowed to race as female. If she has XX, then her high testosterone should be classified as normal human variation, and restrictions on her racing are unjust.

First of all, Richardson is Professor of the History of Science and Womens Studies at Harvard. Her work is interdisciplinary, but it's historical/philosophical more than it's social scientific.

Second of all, there's a reference in that article to a literature review in Nature which explains the scientific dispute: anatomy, hormones, cells and chromosomes sometimes provide conflicting evidence as to gender within the same body, significantly complicating any simple chromosomal definition of sex: www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943.

Bemusedandpuzzled:

History of science and Women's studies couldn't be anymore social science if it painted itself purple and danced naked around Harvard square singing, 'social science is my thing".
Bio

Sarah Richardson, Professor of the History of Science and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Harvard University, is a historian and philosopher of science who studies the sciences of sex, gender, and sexuality. Richardson is the author of Sex Itself: The Search for Male and Female in the Human Genome (2013). Her second book, The Maternal Imprint, is forthcoming from University of Chicago Press. She has published two edited volumes, Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age (2008) and Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology After the Genome (2015), articles in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, BioSocieties, The Hastings Report, and Biology and Philosophy, and commentaries in Nature, PNAS, and the Journal of Neuroscience. Her work has also appeared in popular forums such as Slate, CNN.com, and The Boston Globe.

She is a member of the Governing Board of the International Association for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology and an Associate Editor at Signs.

The article you refer to (not a literature review) is discussing the issue of chimerism, once thought to be rare, now thought to be common. Chimeric cells can be distinguished from somatal cells fairly simply. It is an interesting article though.

Considering all the medal reallocations the IAAF are doing due to doping I am 100% sure they've made sure CS hormones and sexual characteristics aren't an advantage to her. And she didn't win!

I will be honest though the first time she came onto my radar a few years ago I immediately thought how masculine she looks (stereotypically). So I googled her.

Whatever personal opinions we hold she has been cleared to race as a woman against woman. There are physical characteristics that naturally make someone good at certain sports. But many people have those characteristics.

Even children auditioning for things like the royal ballet are subjected to various medical tests to see if they physically are right as well as being amazing dancers at the time of auditioning. It's all about the ability to develop that person in their chosen sport.

The IAAF decide to let her compete as a woman provided testosterone was below 10 nm/l but this was overruled by CAS until the precise degree of advantage is ascertained.

www.iaaf.org/news/press-release/hyperandrogenism-regulations-cas-dutee-chand

Does anyone know why the IAAF don't use the presence or absence of a Y chromosome to draw the line? Rather than hoking around in the athletes' pants (which I think is what they used to do) or relying on measuring testosterone?

At the end of the day, she's either got XX or XY chromosomes - and then a condition that has made her appear as biologically ambiguous in terms of her sex. But she IS either male or female

According to the wikipedia article I've just looked at, the chromosomes only set you off down the pathway to developing as either male or female. It seems that other factors can steer you in a different direction, so a chromosome test does not definitively classify someone as male or female.

Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY females (see androgen insensitivity syndrome).

If you are going to rely on a chromosome test, then (I could be wrong but as I understand it) there could be "men" with penises and testicles and waist length beards who are actually women, and "women" who have given birth and breast-fed who are actually men. (I may be reading too much into my interpretation of wikipedia though.)

You do know intersex babies can have both male and female parts they are not ether gender but both so where do you put them or should it be a blanket ban cuz your not male or female?

She is not transgender she qas born like that...

dadshere - most universities class history as part of arts and humanities. Not social science. You clearly don't know your stuff.

And you're wrong about the article too.

Bemusedandpuzzled- apt username. She is a professor of the History of Science and of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality. Not History. I can see how you would be confused.
How exactly am I wrong about the article- please feel free to enlighten me.

Bemusedandpuzzled:
Also, from her bio from a previous book:

Sarah S. Richardson is John L. Loeb Associate Professor of the Social Sciences at Harvard University

reetgood
I'm not conflating three issues. I'm just capable of more than a simplistic, one-dimensional discussion.