I'm not sure about Caster Semenya. I'm pretty sure her team know she has an inbuilt advantage. If it isn't her fault? Well, it isn't Frankie Dettori's fault he is small and slightly built, which puts him at an advantage for a jockey. And Isaiah Thomas played in the NBA despite being 5'9".
So does athletics focus on continual performance improvements or does it look for naturally gifted or advantaged superhumans? How many people are there with Semenya's condition and do we want to watch them compete against each other?
The IAAF findings that a disproportionate number of women with abnormal testosterone levels are represented in the rankings: Over the last number of years the IAAF looked at the numbers and found that in women’s track events from 400m to one mile, there was a huge over-representation of women with male levels of testosterone. Though such people constitute a tiny minority of the general population, within elite level track and field they are a sizable proportion of the overall pool. (David Walsh article)
Is that fair or unfair? Are they the elite, or is it a chemical advantage? Is sport supposed to celebrate natural ability or training effort and commitment, or some balance of both?
I don't think it's to make someone take anti-androgens (presumably something like Lupron?) But then someone without that condition would not be able to compete.
It's like moving basketball nets two feet higher. Then only players who are nearing seven feet tall would have a competitive advantage, and it starts to get ridiculous. So I'm conflicted.
Martina's transgender/transsexual distinction is a good one. It appeals to the public's sense of fair play, offers wokebros a way out of their tortured logic and re-emphasises the fact that most trans people retain their unaltered genitalia. Plus from her personal point of view it makes sense when taking Renée Richards into account.
But McKinnon is a piss-taker. Of that there is no doubt.