Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Semenya temporarily free to compete in 800m

126 replies

OrchidInTheSun · 03/06/2019 21:17

As the last thread was deleted, I shall be very clearly staying within the talk guidelines.

Here's a report on the ruling: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/athletics/caster-semenya-olympic-champion-temporarily-cleared-to-compete-without-medication-by-swiss-court-a4158461.html

It's very unclear about what it actually means though. And why this court can overrule the sports body. Anyone shed any light? Confused

OP posts:
andyoldlabour · 04/06/2019 08:50

"FeministCat whatever the athletic regs, she was born believing she was a woman, and has lived a female experience her whole life (other than being able to run unusually fast). It's pretty awful to deny her that imo."

From what their coach has said, as a young "girl", Caster played football with boys and did not socialise with girls.
At Caster's wedding, Caster wore a man's suit and Caster's wife wore elegant women's clothes.
No human being believes anything when they are born, they are a miniature human being without any knowledge.
Caster has internal testes and no uterus, and went through a male puberty, which ensured that Caster enjoyed all the physical attributes which that provided.

Ginnymweasley · 04/06/2019 08:54

I didn't even realise until a couple of weeks ago that they had xy chromosomes which shows how biased the main reporting was. I dont know what the right answer is regards to competing but she should admit that she has an unfair advantage over biological women. Her comments about women are not very nice at all.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 04/06/2019 09:01

It must be a very confusing and disorienting experience to grow up believing you're one thing and then to find out, or perhaps to start to suspect, at puberty, one of the most tumultuous times in life, that you're another thing - especially something as fundamental as what sex you are. I feel sorry for Caster having had to go through all this.

But if it's correct that Caster is 46XY and has known this for a long time, for me it's completely clear that Caster should not be competing in women's events. I don't care how Caster was socialised or what the sex is on Caster's birth certificate. The sex segregation in sport is to give the biological sex that goes through female puberty the chance to compete against others like them. It makes a nonsense of that to allow people who are effectively self-identifying as female for sports purposes to compete.

OldCrone · 04/06/2019 09:20

I think we should be clear about what the problem is with Semenya participating in women's events. It's nothing to do with Semenya's behaviour or childhood socialisation. It's about biology.

From what their coach has said, as a young "girl", Caster played football with boys and did not socialise with girls.

Some girls do this. It doesn't make them boys.

At Caster's wedding, Caster wore a man's suit and Caster's wife wore elegant women's clothes.

If this was the case at a lesbian wedding, it wouldn't mean one of those women was actually a man.

Caster has internal testes and no uterus, and went through a male puberty, which ensured that Caster enjoyed all the physical attributes which that provided.

This is why Semenya shouldn't compete in women's sport.

feesh · 04/06/2019 09:20

It must be awful to grow up thinking you have this outstanding talent too, which your whole life is based around. Your ego is built up on it and you have sacrificed everything else to compete at an international level. To have that taken away; well it’s no wonder Caster is fighting it.

A very difficult situation; I can see both sides.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 04/06/2019 09:23

It's nothing to do with Semenya's behaviour or childhood socialisation. It's about biology.

This is absolutely true.

However, much of the conversation and justification from Semenyas team and supporters, has been about how she believed and was socialised as a ‘girl’. That’s why there’s so much conversation around that. There shouldn’t be, but it was very much started by the South Africans.

OldCrone · 04/06/2019 09:23

Caster has internal testes and no uterus, and went through a male puberty, which ensured that Caster enjoyed all the physical attributes which that provided.

For more clarity, the fact that Semenya has no uterus is irrelevant here. Many women have no uterus. But women don't have testes.

borntobequiet · 04/06/2019 09:35

I'm unclear as to what has been "sacrificed" here.

NotBadConsidering · 04/06/2019 09:37

But if it's correct that Caster is 46XY and has known this for a long time

Both of these things are indisputable facts. That people still ask “if” is also indicative of how poor reporting has been on this issue.

OrchidInTheSun · 04/06/2019 09:48

“Should a male whose external genitalia didn’t develop properly be allowed to run against women?”

This, this, this!

OP posts:
Barracker · 04/06/2019 09:54

For more clarity, the fact that Semenya has no uterus is irrelevant here. Many women have no uterus. But women don't have testes.

It is relevant. Because having a uterus is ubiquitous with most females and it affects performance. Having periods, or needing to take medication to stop them, affects performance. Pregnancy affects performance.

We fall into a trap when we say "ah, yes, 99.99% of the female sex has these features: XYZ, all of which are relevant, sex specific and impact performance. But as I have found singular examples of females WITHOUT X,Y, or Z, I have determined that none of them be ever considered relevant, and should all be disregarded."

That reasoning leads us to disregard EVERY single physical feature distinguishing females from males, as there will be examples for each of women missing each feature, if you search hard enough.

Finding exceptions to a norm does not disprove that the norm exists and is relevant.

A woman who has had a hysterectomy may find she has an athletic advantage (unlikely, but she will not need to handle periods or pregnancy like other female athletes)
But she remains a woman, and any hypothetical advantage does not change her eligibility for the female sex class.

A person who has testes, and who does not have a uterus, has two, not one, male physical advantages over the females.

Let's not start disregarding fundamental aspects of female physiology because some women don't have them. They remain as relevant as ever.

RussianSpamBot · 04/06/2019 10:02

I didn't even realise until a couple of weeks ago that they had xy chromosomes which shows how biased the main reporting was.

Absolutely. I didn't know about it until the decision came out, which makes it 100% clear. Then the reporting of the issue afterwards barely mentioned it. Which has to be either deliberately and massively disingenuous, or really poor reporting.

It would be one thing if people were aware of it, but thought XY was the wrong test to use. I've seen some decent, scientifically underpinned arguments that it shouldn't be, as well as the usual nonsense from the self ID brigade. But it seems most people with an opinion literally don't know. We were treated to a couple of posts last night proving this point on the deleted thread.

NotBadConsidering · 04/06/2019 10:07

The previous big thread on this wasn’t deleted, it just reached 1000 posts:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3511026-Caster-Semenya

OldCrone · 04/06/2019 10:12

A woman who has had a hysterectomy may find she has an athletic advantage (unlikely, but she will not need to handle periods or pregnancy like other female athletes)
But she remains a woman, and any hypothetical advantage does not change her eligibility for the female sex class.

This was the point I was trying to make with my comment about women who don't have a uterus. I was trying to avoid the usual response from the AWAs questioning whether a woman who has had a hysterectomy or who was born without a uterus is still a woman.

A person who has testes, and who does not have a uterus, has two, not one, male physical advantages over the females.

I agree, but a woman with XX chromosomes who was born without a uterus, or who has had a hysterectomy, is still a woman. A person who was born with XY chromosomes and testes (and obviously, no uterus) is not a woman. The reason that person is not classed as a woman is not the lack of a uterus, but the presence of testes and XY chromosomes.

RussianSpamBot · 04/06/2019 10:25

There was a deleted thread last night.

NotBadConsidering · 04/06/2019 10:25

Oh really?! Must have missed that.

OldCrone · 04/06/2019 10:25

you have sacrificed everything else to compete at an international level.

Semenya “is one of our own,” declared regional mayor Motalane Monakede. “She grew up in these villages where she had to walk many kilometres to fetch wood and to fetch water.

mg.co.za/article/2009-08-29-moment-of-pride-as-semenya-returns-to-gamasehlong

This is what Semenya 'sacrificed'. An impoverished existence in a South African village. I can understand why Semenya is undeterred by being called a cheat, and is willing to fight this out. The contrast between Semenya's current lifestyle and childhood is immense.

TheGoalIsToStayOutOfTheHole · 04/06/2019 10:28

Sorry but my patiece and sympathy for Caster is wearing thin now. Shes known she has an advantage for years and hidden it. And now, is just still not giving a shite about the actual women shes competing against. Yes, it must have been a shck (what..10 years back?) but..that excuse does run out at some stage and people need to think of the women, who have no chance against someone who is male.

FeministCat · 04/06/2019 10:29

NotBadConsidering

The previous big thread on this wasn’t deleted, it just reached 1000 posts

No, there was a new thread yesterday that only reached three pages that was about this suspension of the regulations that was deleted by MNHQ due to “too many reports”. OP refers to it in the very first post on this particular thread, and it is why I was tiptoeing in my responses on here because some people were clearly reporting it seems for “misgendering” an XY person who wants to compete as an XX person. On that thread there were people who very clearly did not know Caster was XY and were saying there was absolutely no indication they were XY, despite the fact the regulations would not apply to Caster if Caster were XX.

Outanabout · 04/06/2019 10:30

A pp asked why female athletes are continuing to compete in certain event where they have no chance of winning, and I wonder if they might be hoping that of rules change in the future, to become more XX-friendly, the results might be overturned and they'll get the medals retroactively? Doesn't help women who lost out on the chance to compete, of course.

FeministCat · 04/06/2019 10:39

Outanabout

They are likely still competing because this is for many of them their job, their livelihood, their own dream.

No one competes to hopefully “retroactively” get a medal. There is no podium finish then, definitely less prize money (they rarely seem to go back and get it back and give it to “true” winner), no great sponsorship (hard to market a winner when they are “gold medalist due to a DQ” and you don’t have a podium finish to splash across the Wheaties box.)

Do most people know the names of the people who got, say, Lance Armstrong’s yellow jersey finishes after he was stripped of them?

I’ve played competitive sports and there are a couple times I or my team “won” a year or two later due to a DQ by team that “won” on the day. And guess what? No one cares by that point or even knows. It does not even feel good, there is no rush or excitement or joy, just a little tinge of vindication and anger.

Outanabout · 04/06/2019 10:45

I was grasping at straws trying to find some way to feel better for the women being cheated in all sports at the moment, but what you say makes sense FeministCat. Unfortunately. 😥

Antibles · 04/06/2019 11:02

It must be awful to grow up thinking you have this outstanding talent too, which your whole life is based around. Your ego is built up on it and you have sacrificed everything else to compete at an international level. To have that taken away; well it’s no wonder Caster is fighting it.

You're trying to be kind but I don't think women's sport is under any obligation to prioritise protecting the ego of an XY individual over respecting the truth. This is about the truth and about fairness to XX female athletes. We need to keep saying: what about them?

This should all have been put to bed kindly but firmly back when CS's chromosome test was first done at that first international meet. But everybody soft-pedalled things to be kind. Not kind at all of course to the many female athletes who are consequently short of richly deserved medals over the past decade. But who gives a shit about them?

I also agree about how little has been 'sacrificed'. As well as the life athletics has given CS, CS strolls home in races and I cannot believe the training requires the same amount of sacrifice as for XX individuals.

Barracker · 04/06/2019 11:13

We need a new category for people with DSDs that confer male advantage.
-Male
-Female
-Specific DSDs
Resisting it is utterly futile, because, we are already there - the female category is already dominated by XY medallists in several sports.
The question isn't whether XY DSD athletes get to compete in their own category, because the female category is becoming the de facto XY DSD category anyway.

The only remaining question, is whether it suffices to have two XY categories only, or whether XX females - half the global population, deserve a category of their own, once again.

Inclusivity?
We've engineered a situation that excludes the entire female population from competing with each other because we can't bring ourselves to acknowledge the importance of their physical similarities, AND DIFFERENCES - from men, from people with DSDs that confer male advantage, and from any man who believes he can identify into a physical category to which he does not belong.

I read an article by a man with PAIS, the condition that seems most probable to be affecting Semenya. This particular man was assigned male at birth, by UK medics, but Semenya was assigned female, by the elder women in the village, according to Semenya's father.
This man was advocating FOR Semenya to compete with women. Despite the fact that he himself would not be eligible, having been correctly assigned male, and despite the fact that judging his own circumstances, which included having testosterone treatment, makes him potentially LESS naturally masculinised than Semenya.

At the heart of all of these arguments is the implicit assumption that 'female' is a category whose parameters must be decided by men.

When, in fact, we are a group of humans belonging to the same reproductive sex class. We exist, as a discrete group, whether men contrive to blur the parameters of our existence or not.

We are not a vacuum into which men can inject their preferred meaning.

andyoldlabour · 04/06/2019 11:26

"However, much of the conversation and justification from Semenyas team and supporters, has been about how she believed and was socialised as a ‘girl’."

Exactly, which is why I posted about what we now know, because from feeling sorry for Caster for years, I now believe that we have been deliberately misled.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.