Caster Semenya

[LilaJude]

Is anyone else outraged that sports bodies are suggesting forcing Caster Semenyer to take medication to reduce her testosterone levels?

Caster has a naturally occurring phenomenon which gives her more testosterone than the average woman, and this has been deemed a competitive advantage that needs to be medically regulated.

How is this fair? We don’t handicap other athletes for having longer legs or more muscle mass. The nature of sport is that people with exceptional bodies triumph.

It’s like these sports governing bodies are saying ‘testosterone is a man thing, women aren’t allowed it.’ But Caster does have it, naturally, and it’s just part of who she is.

I just think it’s outrageous to force a woman to medicate just because a naturally occurring condition means her body doesn’t fit with what is conventionally seen as feminine / female.

Although I appreciate that the curcumstances of where CS was born led to them being raised female they are apparently male. Having previously supported their right to compete as female believing them to be XX with DSD I no longer can.

As far as I'm concerned sport that is SEX segregated should remain so. The segregation was put in place for a reason and that reason remains and therefore so should the sex categories.

Everyone has the right to partake in sport but it should be in done in a sporting fashion at the level you are able to compete. Feelings don't trump science and sport segregation needs to be science based XX and XY.

..........1st photo:
CS along with some other notable intersex athletes (pictured) appear visually male and audibly male. I'm not saying that to be cruel on any level or to make assumptions about how they feel. The attached photo is from 2016 Rio Women's 800m race of the Gold/Silver/Bronze.

2nd photo:
Mark Weston (born Mary Louise Edith Weston) was called "the Devonshire Wonder" - one of the best Women's British field athletes of the 1920s. He was a national champion in the women's javelin throw and discus throw in 1929 and won the women's shot put title in 1925, 1928 and 1929. He had a sex change in 1926 and went on to have three children with his wife. He believed himself to be female as did his older brother due to their androgynous genitalia and were raised as girls. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weston_(athlete)

3rd photo:
Stella Walsh (on right) - an intersex athlete that competed in the Olympics (1932) - taking the Gold for Poland. Helen Stephens (on left) took the Silver for the US and was confirmed female upon physical inspection.

I'm not passing judgment on any level as I know women and men come in all shapes and sizes.

It is really disheartening that so many women's records seem to have been set by those either doping or with intersex conditions that afford advantage. I feel for all of these people (it can't be an easy path), however, find it incredibly unfair to expect or accept that individuals with intersex conditions could fairly compete against women without the apparent physical advantages that these intersex people exhibit.

Because after all, aren't sports supposed to be about fair competition not about performance? Isn't this why we have special categories and games for individuals that have physical challenges? Isn't that why we have separate women's and men's categories? It wouldn't be hard to just add an intersex division and perhaps a transgender division as well. As we can see from the past and current competitions the intersex division and transgender division would be smaller but there certainly seems to be enough athletes in these categories (in most cases) to have organized competition.

While some may be initially unaware of their condition and/or that it gives them an advantage, once they become aware they have no excuse to continue on when it disadvantages their current competitors. They should seek to level their own playing field rather than take advantage of their current competitors.

Chasing a dream with extremely unfair physical advantages can't be terribly fulfilling or much of a challenge. It increasingly feels like as women we aren't able to have anything that's just ours (and never have) beyond our biological realities.

Inside science (Radio 4) has said that Caster ‘had her gender verified - she is a woman’. What is the definition of woman here? Does anyone know.

For this reason I would happily share female spaces which I would not ordinarily be happy about with a bio male and she should be treated as a woman in all ways except where it disadvantages others such as competitive sport or where it disadvantages Caster herself such as medical care.

Which is fair enough from you, but it would seem that Caster herself doesn't really want to be in female spaces ( apart from in sporting competitions), judging by her interviews; even though legally she is entitled to, being female ( due to birth certificate).

Correction to my post up thread...

Mark Weston had a 'sex change' in 1936 to make his genitals more 'male' as they were androgynous.

Sorry about that, crack on!

Having now read the CAS summary www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Executive_Summary__5794_.pdf I think that perhaps Inside Science was wrong. CAS, when it referred to Caster as female, was clear that it was using this in the legal sense. She is legally female as presumably that is what her birth certificate says.

It gives a very interesting summary: (apologies if this has been linked already)

The Panel accepts the IAAF’s submission that reference to a person’s legal sex alone
may not always constitute a fair and effective means of making that determination. This
is because the reason for the separation between male and female categories in
competitive athletics is ultimately founded on biology rather than legal status. The
purpose of having separate categories is to protect a class of individuals who lack certain
insuperable performance advantages from having to compete against individuals who
possess those insuperable advantages. In this regard, the fact that a person is recognised
in law as a woman and identifies as a woman does not necessarily mean that they lack
those insuperable performance advantages associated with certain biological traits that
predominate in individuals who are generally (but not always) recognised in law as males
and self-identify as males. It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that
ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that
insuperable advantage and which do not.
19. Accordingly, the purpose of the male-female divide in competitive athletics is not to
protect athletes with a female legal sex from having to compete against athletes with a
male legal sex. Nor is it to protect athletes with a female gender identity from having to
compete against athletes with a male gender identity. Rather, it is to protect individuals
whose bodies have developed in a certain way following puberty from having to compete
against individuals who, by virtue of their bodies having developed in a different way
following puberty, possess certain physical traits that create such a significant
performance advantage that fair competition between the two groups is not possible. In
most cases, the former group comprises individuals with a female legal sex and a female
gender identity, while the latter group comprises individuals with a male legal sex and
male gender identity. However, this is not true of all cases. Natural human biology does
not map perfectly onto legal status and gender identity. The imperfect alignment between
nature, law and identity is what gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this case.

It is human biology, not legal status or gender identity, that
ultimately determines which individuals possess the physical traits which give rise to that insuperable advantage and which do not.

Orilly?

Orilly

I know. For fucks sake.

All the durs on the planet. And a strong recommendation to whoever wrote that to leave the word salad at home.

All the durs on the planet

However, this is not true of all cases. Natural human biology does
not map perfectly onto legal status and gender identity. The imperfect alignment between, nature, law and identity is what gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this case.

AKA, they recognize an XY androgen sensitive male as female to compete with females, as long as they have one of five DSDs and lower their testosterone. Or hey, they don’t have to do the latter either if they want to run longer distances instead. Women in those distances should just deal with those performance advantages their XY competitors have by way of male puberty, high testosterone, and their androgen sensitivity

Accordingly, the purpose of the male-female divide in competitive athletics is not to protect athletes with a female legal sex from having to compete against athletes with a male legal sex. Nor is it to protect athletes with a female gender identity from having to compete against athletes with a male gender identity. Rather, it is to protect individuals whose bodies have developed in a certain way following puberty from having to compete against individuals who, by virtue of their bodies having developed in a different way following puberty, possess certain physical traits that create such a significant performance advantage that fair competition between the two groups is not possible

The imperfect alignment between nature, law and identity is what gives rise to the conundrum at the heart of this case

Oh the conundrum. Sure a mistake was made, a medical condition was not diagnosed in childhood. However there is no conundrum now, except for trying to perpetuate the mistake by unfairly shoehorn a place for a (male) person with a Y chromosome and sensitivity to androgens in amongst female athletes. It cannot be done fairly or ethically or rationally So just stop.

Sorry if I’m repeating something here, just trying to get this right as my previous understanding was that XY = male... which I now realise is wrong.

A Y chromosome alone will not result in a person being male. In fact a young women reading this might have a Y chromosome and not even know.

It is only a Y chromosome plus sensitivity to androgens (together) that can result in a person experiencing a male puberty.

If a girl without that sensitivity holds a Y chromosome, this last day could have been distressing as people have basically said “You’re male!”

No. You’re still a girl, you just happen to have a medical condition.

Clare if you read this, thank you for sharing your story and for your incredible advocacy for the Intersex community

@CuriousaboutSamphire how is having longer legs a mechanical disadvantage to a sprinter? It's complicated combination of Newton's Laws, lever length and muscle type.

This article covers it really well

www.telegraph.co.uk/usain-bolt-worlds-fastest-man/0/built-for-speed-what-makes-usain-bolt-so-fast/

That's also why Peter Crouch's overhead kick against Galetassari why so stunning, from a biomechanical point of view

I don't think that's right 2B.

XY is male. Someone with CAIS may look female but they are genetically male. Most are raised as women because their genitalia look female tho. But as they are totally immune to the effects of testosterone and don't go through puberty, they're not going to be beating any women in running races any time soon.

Incidentally, ClareCAIS on MN and Claire Graham (MRKHVoice) on twitter aren't the same person. MRKHVoice has, as her name suggests, MRKH. She has XX chromosomes and is genetically female.

2B females do not have a Y.

Datun wins the thread - all the durs on the planet is what I am using with DH and DD for all future discussions.
It is Melissa Bishop, Joanna Joswik and Lynsey Sharp I feel most sorry for in all this.

Sorry if I’m repeating something here, just trying to get this right as my previous understanding was that XY = male... which I now realise is wrong.
no I do not believe that is wrong at all!

CuriousaboutSamphire

This study shows that tall, slender sprinters are the fastest. It is just possible that previously, taller athletes were encouraged away from sprinting. The two fastest ever sprinters - Bolt and Powell are both over 1.9m.

www.livescience.com/7819-taller-athletes-faster-study-finds.html

Genderfreelass

"Everyone has the right to partake in sport but it should be in done in a sporting fashion at the level you are able to compete. Feelings don't trump science and sport segregation needs to be science based XX and XY."

Yes, I think anyone - man or woman - who has ever competed fairly at sports would agree with that, and it simply makes me more frustrated and angry regarding the IOC's decision making in 2015.

it has been horrible to see the backlash against people like me

I’m really sorry about that. I would like to see the backlash against the TRA’s for appropriating intersex and against corrupt individuals who have clearly exploited and weaponised medical conditions for their own ends.

I do feel shit every time I type something that could offend you or a transsexual, but equally I can’t let emotive arguments that damage women go. I’m also not hugely articulate. So again sorry.

andy Yep! More studies are now looking at different aspects of the biomechanical understanding. But, taken as a whole, there should be a mechanical disadvantage, that is the given, the starting point of understanding human movement. The point I was taught and that is still taught in schools and at A levels today, even into undergrad programmes. HOWEVER the latest studies are looking specifically at WHY NOT, as more tall slender people start to come to the fore in hitherto short, powerful sports! So that is beginning to change, as much science does. I almost wish I was still involved!

Basically people like Bolt and Crouch are making sport scientists take another look at their understanding of the interaction between physiology and the environment.

Personally I can't wait to see how a tall slender person becomes world champion at weight lifting BUT if the newer studies can pinpoint the specifics, then training programmes can be designed to make that happen - and I find that fascinating!

Clare, so sorry. Hope you're okay.

I do think it is fair that this is discussed, but some of the language used is horrible - and I think it is important to remember that a person with an incredibly rare and frequently traumatic medical history, is being discussed Yep! But I think that the cognitive dissonance required for that is probably beyond most people in their every day lives.